Oral
Answers to
Questions

NORTHERN IRELAND

The Secretary of State was asked—

British Service Personnel Memorial

John Mann: If the Government will make it its policy to build a national memorial to British service personnel killed on service in Northern Ireland.

John Penrose: May I start by paying tribute to my predecessor in this role, my hon. Friend the Member for North West Cambridgeshire (Mr Vara), who has been typically generous and helpful with his time and efforts during the handover?
I am sure that everyone on both sides of the House will agree that we all owe a vast debt of gratitude to the heroism and bravery of British servicemen and women who were killed upholding the rule of law in Northern Ireland. Their sacrifice will never be forgotten. Within the National Memorial Arboretum in Staffordshire sits the armed forces memorial. Rightly, it includes the names of every member of the armed forces killed while serving in Northern Ireland, as a permanent reminder of their bravery and sacrifice.

John Mann: Anthony Dykes, who came from Harworth, a mining village in my constituency, was murdered on 5 April 1979. His parents, Fred and Kathleen Dykes, are two of the finest people I have ever met and represent everything that is good about my community and this country. Other grieving parents have specific memorials. For Fred and Kathleen’s son and others who were killed or murdered on duty in Northern Ireland, there is no such memorial. Is it not now time that, as with other conflicts, there is a specific memorial for those who served our country and lost their lives in the conflict in Northern Ireland?

John Penrose: I understand and empathise with the hon. Gentleman and his constituents. In fact, as I visited the former Massereene Army barracks in Northern Ireland last week, I paused to pay my respects at a local memorial to two former Army engineers who were killed in 2009. There are many such memorials to individual acts of heroism or tragedy scattered not just  across Northern Ireland, but around the rest of this country. Those commemorate individual actions and tragedies. The national memorial is the one in Staffordshire, and we should not underestimate its importance or value—it having been opened by Her Majesty the Queen and recording the names of everybody who has been killed on service in Northern Ireland and other conflicts.

John Bercow: I would gently point out that this is not an essay exchange competition; this is Question Time. For goodness’ sake, let’s speed up.

Philip Hollobone: Will the Minister remind the House how many brave British service personnel were killed or wounded in Operation Banner, which was the defence by this country against a terrorist onslaught in Northern Ireland?

John Penrose: Having been in the job for three and a half weeks, I am afraid that I do not have the precise number, but it was very many and the tragedy was huge.

Gavin Robinson: One of the last formal acts I did as Lord Mayor of Belfast in 2013 was to unveil a memorial stone in the Belfast City Council memorial garden to the Ulster Defence Regiment and others who served in Operation Banner. May I invite the Minister to come with me to see the memorial there and to consider how best nationally we could reflect the Government’s recognition of sacrifice in Northern Ireland?

John Penrose: I will gladly go to that memorial.

Business Promotion

Thomas Tugendhat: What recent steps she has taken to promote Northern Ireland businesses throughout the world.

Craig Tracey: What recent steps she has taken to promote Northern Ireland businesses throughout the world.

John Penrose: Britain is a global trading nation and is about to become more global, so we want to promote the strengths of Northern Ireland’s business community to a global audience. So far, I have visited CM Precision Components in Downpatrick, the Causeway Chamber of Commerce, Randox in Antrim, Coca-Cola in Lisburn, Queen’s University Centre of Excellence in Precision Medicine in Belfast and many Northern Ireland representatives of the Federation of Small Businesses, Chamber of Commerce, Confederation of British Industry and Institute of Directors.

Thomas Tugendhat: On every visit I make to embassies in my role as Chair of the Select Committee on Foreign Affairs, it has been made very clear to me that Northern Ireland has an amazing economy that is growing and has a rightful place around the world. Does my right hon. Friend—forgive me, I meant my hon. Friend; the day is young—agree that Northern Ireland’s economic achievements would be only that much more great if the Northern Ireland Assembly were out there assisting and promoting it through the Northern Ireland Executive?

John Penrose: I completely agree that things would be hugely improved by a functioning Assembly and Executive. I have been in this role for only a couple of weeks, but, as a former businessman, I have been hugely impressed by the economic progress since the Belfast agreement. Northern Ireland is open for business and we want the whole world to know.

Craig Tracey: In his first few weeks of meeting businesses, what is my hon. Friend’s assessment of the unique strengths of Northern Ireland for global companies looking to grow and invest their businesses, and what support will he provide as Minister?

John Penrose: In the meetings that I have held so far, I have been hugely impressed by the skilled and stable workforce in Northern Ireland. I have also been impressed by its world-leading research—for example, in the precision medicine centre that I visited at Queen’s in Belfast—and by the strong sectoral abilities in cyber-security, life sciences and aerospace. We are doing a great deal and we need to continue to do so to promote that economic growth.

David Simpson: The Minister will be aware in recent times of the success that companies have had across the globe in the agri-food sector in Northern Ireland from China to Taiwan, Australia and Dubai. There is perhaps a chance of hosting a conference in Northern Ireland to promote the agri-food business and business as a whole. Is that something in which he would be interested?

John Penrose: The short answer is yes. If the hon. Gentleman brings me the details, I will be delighted to discuss them.

Chris Law: In relation to the Belfast region city deal announced in the recent Budget, will the Secretary of State justify or explain why the percentage of match funding guaranteed for Belfast is not being replicated elsewhere in the UK, most notably in my city of Dundee under the Tay cities deal?

John Penrose: As I understand it, city deals vary from place to place. They are situation and location specific almost by definition, so there is not a particular standardised approach to any one of them. They are tailored and deliberately so. I am afraid that that is what inevitably happens. With any luck, some other city deals, perhaps in other parts of Scotland, may conform more closely to what the hon. Gentleman is after.

Andrew Murrison: Does my hon. Friend agree that one way to boost business in Northern Ireland will be to deal with air passenger duty and corporation tax, which are, unfortunately, devolved matters? Will he therefore encourage the institutions in Northern Ireland to get up and going again? If not, will the Government take some action?

John Penrose: My hon. Friend, the Chairman of the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee, is absolutely right to point out that these are devolved matters and that they need to be taken forward by a devolved Assembly and Administration—the Executive. We want to encourage  all sides to get going again, because, clearly, these issues are important to the people of Northern Ireland and need to be addressed.

EU Withdrawal Agreement

Douglas Chapman: What assessment she has made of the potential effect of the EU withdrawal agreement on Northern Ireland.

Liz Twist: What assessment her Department has made of the effect on Northern Ireland of the UK leaving the EU.

Patrick Grady: What assessment she has made of the potential effect of the EU withdrawal agreement on Northern Ireland.

Alan Brown: What assessment she has made of the potential effect of the EU withdrawal agreement on Northern Ireland.

Virendra Sharma: What assessment her Department has made of the effect on Northern Ireland of the UK leaving the EU.

Tommy Sheppard: What assessment she has made of the potential effect of the EU withdrawal agreement on Northern Ireland.

Damien Moore: What assessment she has made of the potential effect on Northern Ireland of the EU withdrawal agreement.

Karen Bradley: May I start by putting on record my thanks  to my hon. Friend the Member for North West Cambridgeshire (Mr Vara), the former Minister?
The withdrawal agreement is the best way for Northern Ireland and the whole United Kingdom to ensure that we leave the European Union. It protects all the things that we value in Northern Ireland—the constitutional and economic integrity of the UK, and vital jobs and investment—and, for the people of Northern Ireland, it continues the progress that we have made over the past two decades under the Belfast agreement.

Douglas Chapman: On Saturday 8 December, just five short days ago, the Secretary of State penned a letter to the people of Northern Ireland. The letter stated that the deal protects all the things that we value. As the Prime Minister is now desperately rushing around Europe to change that very deal, may I ask what the new letter will say this Saturday?

Karen Bradley: I stand by the comments that I made in the letter. This is the best deal to ensure that the United Kingdom leaves the European Union as one united kingdom. The Prime Minister, though, has recognised the concerns that there rightly are around the backstop, and she is seeking to address those concerns.

Liz Twist: Will the Secretary of State tell us what aspect of this deal would require the Northern Ireland Assembly to be sitting? If the Government cannot get devolution in Northern Ireland back up and running, will they resort to direct rule to implement their deal?

Karen Bradley: We all want to see the Executive back up and running, and we want to see the institutions in place. The Good Friday agreement achieved so much for the people of Northern Ireland and those institutions are such an integral part of them. I know that the politicians in Northern Ireland do want to come back to do that. I think the hon. Lady is referring to the Stormont lock in paragraph 50 of the joint report, and the Government stand by that lock.

Patrick Grady: Will the Secretary of State confirm whether she has carried out any analysis on the exact economic and competitive advantages that Northern Ireland would have over the rest of the United Kingdom in the event of the backstop being activated? If she has, will she publish them? If she has not, will she commission some?

Karen Bradley: I think that it is clear that this Government want to see us go into the future relationship with the European Union by 31 December 2020 and that the backstop is an insurance policy that none of us wants to see activated.

Alan Brown: Article 5 of the Ireland-Northern protocol on the withdrawal agreement, which states that
“free movement for Union citizens and their family members, irrespective of their nationality, to, from and within Ireland”,
means that people will be able to move about as part of the common travel area. So with the end of free movement post Brexit, what additional checks will be imposed on people travelling to and from Northern Ireland from the UK mainland?

Karen Bradley: The hon. Gentleman does not understand the way that the common travel area works today and the fact there is free movement across the island of Ireland for all citizens and nationalities. Of course there is a good working relationship between the Border Force agencies in Northern Ireland and their equivalents in the Republic, so that we can ensure that those who do not have the right to be in the United Kingdom do not access the United Kingdom.

Virendra Sharma: Throughout the debates on the EU, we were talking about the European arrest warrant. I give the Secretary of State another opportunity today to clarify why there has been in the withdrawal agreement little in the way of commitment on the European arrest warrant, which is key to policing in Northern Ireland.

Karen Bradley: The hon. Gentleman is quite right that the European arrest warrant is used in Northern Ireland more than anywhere else in the United Kingdom, and it is an incredibly important instrument. I hope that he has read the political declaration that accompanies the withdrawal agreement, which is clear that in the future security partnership we will have a deeper relationship with the European Union than any other third country, including on surrender of EU nationals.

Tommy Sheppard: The Prime Minister has told us that she is on a quest for “democratic legitimacy” for her agreement in respect of Northern Ireland. Is this not a curious term to use given that the one group of people who have been consistently ignored by the Government are the people of Northern Ireland, who voted not to leave the European Union?

Karen Bradley: The people of the United Kingdom voted to leave the European Union. Nearly 17.5 million people in the United Kingdom, including people in the hon. Gentleman’s constituency and mine, voted to leave the European Union. The people of Northern Ireland want to see this deal, because they want to see us leave the European Union in a managed way that is not chaotic and that works for Northern Ireland.

Damien Moore: What feedback has my right hon. Friend had on the withdrawal agreement from the business community in Northern Ireland, and is there any differentiation between those who are on the border and those who are not?

Karen Bradley: I have significant engagement with businesses across Northern Ireland, and I have found an absolutely consistent message, which is that those businesses, to protect jobs and to protect the progress that we have made since the Belfast agreement, want to see this deal so that Northern Ireland can leave the European Union, with the whole United Kingdom, in an orderly way. In fact, we were very pleased to welcome 12 business and civic society leaders to Westminster last week to express exactly that view.

Bob Blackman: Given the desire by all sides to avoid a hard border between the Republic and the north when we exit the European Union, why is that not, in a legally enforceable way, within the withdrawal agreement or the backstop agreement so that we use new technology for these purposes, not old and untried technology?

Karen Bradley: My hon. Friend will know that the backstop can be ended, if we go into it in the first place, by the future relationship or by alternative means, and that can of course mean new technology. But at this time there is no technology that deals with the issue of the border in a way that respects the rights of the people of Northern Ireland and respects the Belfast agreement and the way that it operates.

Stephen Kerr: Does my right hon. Friend agree with the evidence presented to the Business, Innovation and Skills Committee following our visit to Northern Ireland, published on Monday, saying that businesses and trade bodies in Northern Ireland are crying out for clarity and certainty as we leave the European Union?

Karen Bradley: I was delighted to find myself on the same aeroplane as the BEIS Committee on its visit to Northern Ireland, and am sure that it heard the same message I hear when I am in Northern Ireland, which is that businesses want certainty and clarity, and would like to see us implement this deal so that we can ensure that we leave the European Union in an orderly way.

Nigel Dodds: Last week, the Secretary of State was telling everybody that this was the best deal and the only deal. The Prime Minister now says that that is not the case and she needs changes. What does the Secretary of State say to that?

Karen Bradley: As I have said, this is the best deal. This is the best way for the United Kingdom to leave the European Union as a whole in an orderly way, but the Prime Minister has recognised and listened to the concerns of the right hon. Gentleman, his colleagues and many others in the House about the backstop, and she is looking to assuage those concerns.

Nigel Dodds: The Secretary of State cannot have it both ways. She is telling everybody that this is the best deal, it is a wonderful deal and everybody should accept it. However, the Prime Minister is telling everybody that nobody likes it, the Irish do not want it, Europe does not want it and the British Government do not want it. How does the Secretary of State explain the utter contradiction in those arguments?

Karen Bradley: I disagree with the right hon. Gentleman that there is a contradiction. I think he is talking about the backstop. We all agree that the backstop is a very uncomfortable thing that none of us wants to see introduced, just as we never want to see any insurance policy called upon, because the fact that it is called upon means that the worst has happened.

Gavin Newlands: I welcome the hon. Member for Weston-super-Mare (John Penrose) back to the Government—although, with recent developments, it may be a short stint.
In recent weeks, the Secretary of State has publicly stated that the current backstop protocol puts Northern Ireland in an unrivalled position in the world as a destination for foreign direct investment. However, her Cabinet colleague the Scottish Secretary has said that any suggestion of an advantage for Northern Ireland is a wholly false argument. Who is right—the Scottish Secretary or her?

Karen Bradley: I trust that the hon. Gentleman is not trying to somehow use the unique situation in Northern Ireland and the success of Northern Ireland to try to impute a special status to Scotland. The fact is that Northern Ireland has a land border with Ireland and therefore will be in an unrivalled position, because it will be the only place that has both a land border with the European Union and access to trade deals through the independent trade policy of the United Kingdom. [Interruption.]

John Bercow: I do not wish to tempt fate, but at the moment, the Government Benches are a model of decorum. By contrast, there is a very large number of noisy private conversations taking place on the Opposition Benches, which I feel sure will now cease, as the Front Bench spokesperson comes in.

Tony Lloyd: I welcome the Minister of State to his place. Paragraph 50 of the EU-UK joint report last December made it clear that there would be a guarantee, consistent with the 1998 agreement, that the Northern Ireland Assembly and Executive would be  consulted on any regulatory changes. Why did that guarantee disappear in the withdrawal agreement? Why did the Secretary of State allow it to disappear?

Karen Bradley: The hon. Gentleman refers to an important point. This withdrawal agreement is the only agreement that we can guarantee is consistent with the Belfast/Good Friday agreement. He refers to paragraph 50 of the joint report. The Government’s commitments under paragraph 50 still stand, but quite rightly, we do not want to negotiate our sovereign rights, which are a sovereign matter for the United Kingdom, with the European Union. We want to do it unilaterally.

Tony Lloyd: Paragraph 50 was very clear about the role of the Assembly and the Executive. The Secretary of State’s words are not good enough. Why should Northern Ireland Members have confidence in this Government? Why should the people of Northern Ireland believe that this Government are committed to devolution, to the peace process and to the Good Friday agreement?

Karen Bradley: It is this Government who have inserted in the withdrawal agreement and the political declaration on the future relationship our absolute commitment to the Belfast/Good Friday agreement. It is this Government who are committed to abiding by all our commitments under paragraph 50 of the joint report, including the points about the Stormont lock and unfettered access for Northern Ireland businesses to the market of Great Britain. We stand by those commitments.

Sylvia Hermon: The Secretary of State will be aware—[Interruption.]

John Bercow: Order. Hush for Lady Hermon.

Sylvia Hermon: Thank you, Mr Speaker. Since the withdrawal agreement protects the constitutional status of Northern Ireland and the consent principle as guaranteed by the Belfast/Good Friday agreement, does the Secretary of State agree that it is unforgivable for the Labour party—the architects of the Good Friday agreement—to appear to have abandoned the Good Friday agreement by voting against the Brexit deal negotiated by the Prime Minister?

Karen Bradley: I have to say that I agree with the hon. Lady. I think putting party politics above the Good Friday agreement and all that we achieved through that is unforgivable.

Legacy Consultation

Mark Francois: When she plans to respond to her Department’s consultation on addressing the legacy of Northern Ireland’s past.

Karen Bradley: It is clear that more needs to be done to address the legacy of the past. The current system in Northern Ireland is not working well for anyone. This needs to change to provide better outcomes for victims and survivors of the troubles and to ensure that our armed forces and police officers are not unfairly treated.  We are carefully considering all the views received in almost 18,000 responses and intend to provide an update in due course.

Mark Francois: As the Secretary of State will recall, I have been raising with her for over a year the issue of military veterans who are being legally scapegoated for political and financial gain. It is getting worse. We now have the case of David Griffin, a retired Royal Marine, who is being reinvestigated for an alleged offence 46 years ago, of which he was cleared at the time. He is a Chelsea Pensioner. Is the Secretary of State proud of the fact that, on her watch, we have given “get out of jail free” cards to alleged IRA terrorists and we are now pursuing Chelsea Pensioners instead?

Karen Bradley: My right hon. Friend raised this case with the Prime Minister last week. I, too, am upset to see this situation. This is a result of the current system that we all want to see changed. I say very gently to my right hon. Friend that I have also wanted to work with him on finding a solution to this, and I look forward to continuing to do so, because there is no one simple solution, but we all want to see the system changed.

Emma Little Pengelly: While the headlines are dominated by Brexit, the sad reality is that the witch hunt against our veterans who served in Northern Ireland continues. Can the Secretary of State outline what discussions she has had with the Secretary of State for Defence on finding solutions to stop that witch hunt?

Karen Bradley: I can assure the hon. Lady, with whom I have spoken about this matter on a number of occasions, that I work across Government with all colleagues, because we need to find a way to deal with this issue. There is no one simple solution, but we have to have a way to deal with this that is legal, fair and proportionate.

John Baron: In supporting the point made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Rayleigh and Wickford (Mr Francois), may I remind the Secretary of State that veterans were upholding law and order in the Province and it was the terrorists who were trying to kill people? We should bear that in mind when looking at this issue as a whole.

Karen Bradley: I can absolutely assure my hon. Friend that that is exactly what we are doing. We would not have seen the peace process without the hard work, dedication and dignity of our armed services and our police. They are the reason that we actually were able to have a peace process and we must never forget the sacrifice they made.

Steve Pound: May I, too, welcome the Minister of State—[Interruption.] Thank you, ma’am—the Prime Minister is very gracious. May I welcome I believe the ninth Minister to whose substance I have stood as mere shadow? May I also pay tribute to the hon. Member for North West Cambridgeshire (Mr Vara), a decent man who is wrong on Brexit, but right on many other things?
May I ask the Secretary of State this? She has previously made it clear that she does not support a statute of limitations in Northern Ireland. Does she therefore  agree either with her colleague the Secretary of State for Defence, who describes the persecution of veterans as a “ridiculous vendetta”, or with the Police Service of Northern Ireland, which says that
“we have the law and…we should all be equal before it”?

Karen Bradley: It is possible to agree with both. It is  a delight to respond to the hon. Gentleman, who has incredible popularity in this House. I hope that he heard the documentary on the BBC yesterday, when the Defence Secretary made it clear on the record that we are looking at every option across Government. We are working across Government on this because we all want to see a solution to this problem.

Armed Forces Veterans

Victoria Prentis: What plans the Government have to support armed forces veterans in Northern Ireland.

Ian Paisley Jnr: What plans the Government have to support armed forces veterans in Northern Ireland.

Karen Bradley: This Government are clear that it is only due to the unstinting efforts of our police and armed forces that we have relative peace and stability in Northern Ireland today. I was honoured to meet the Reserve Forces and Cadets Association for Northern Ireland recently when launching the veterans strategy there.

Victoria Prentis: Will the Secretary of State ensure that any proposals that she brings forward to deal with the legacy of the past are balanced and proportionate, and that our brave veterans are fairly treated?

Karen Bradley: I can absolutely give my hon. Friend that guarantee.

Ian Paisley Jnr: Three hundred and nineteen Royal Ulster Constabulary officers murdered, 258 Ulster Defence Regiment soldiers murdered, and over 200 of those cases unresolved—what is the Secretary of State going to do to bring justice to those gallant members from our community?

Karen Bradley: The hon. Gentleman puts it very well. We need to see this issue dealt with. The current system is not working for anybody. We need to see it resolved. We are working through almost 18,000 responses to the consultation and we look forward to working across the House to find a resolution that works for everyone.

Owen Smith: The Secretary of State is also proposing to support some of the 500 victims of the troubles with a victims pension. Can she tell us when the first payments will be made?

Karen Bradley: The hon. Gentleman knows better than anyone that this is a devolved matter. It is a frustration that we do not have an Assembly and an Executive in place to make these decisions, but I want to see progress made.

PRIME MINISTER

THE PRIME MINISTER WAS ASKED—

Engagements

Kerry McCarthy: If she will list her official engagements for Wednesday 12 December.

Theresa May: I know that the thoughts of the whole House will be with all those caught up in the horrific incident in Strasbourg last night, and we stand ready to give whatever support the French authorities may need.
Today, I will have meetings—possibly many meetings—with ministerial colleagues and others.

Kerry McCarthy: Just a normal day in the office then, Prime Minister. I also want to give my condolences for the tragic events in the beautiful city of Strasbourg.
Last year, the Prime Minister told us that there was not going to be a general election, and then there was. This week, she told us that she was not going to pull the meaningful vote, and then she did. Can I ask her now if she is going to rule out having a general election and a people’s vote?

Theresa May: Can I say to the hon. Lady, first of all, that I think that a general election at this point in time, in the middle of our negotiations, would not be in the national interest? Secondly, as she will have heard me say before in this House, I think we should respect the result of the referendum that took place in 2016.

Nigel Mills: Given what we could call uncertainty about the future of the withdrawal agreement, could the Prime Minister give people some certainty—that is, EU nationals in the UK—that whatever happens to that deal, they will be allowed to stay on roughly the same terms that are in that draft agreement?

Theresa May: My hon. Friend raises an important point, because I know that EU nationals living here in the United Kingdom will be concerned about what might happen if a deal is not agreed. We have been very clear as a Government that the withdrawal agreement that we have agreed does respect the rights, and protect and guarantee the rights, of EU citizens living here. But in the unlikely event of no deal, I have been clear that this Government will still protect EU citizens’ rights, and we would wish to know that actually, other EU Governments would respect the rights of UK citizens living in the EU as well.

Jeremy Corbyn: I am sure that the whole House will join me in joining the Prime Minister in condemning the shootings in Strasbourg and extending our sympathy to the families of those that have been killed or injured there.
I am delighted to see the Prime Minister back in her place after her little journeys. Having told the media this morning that she has made progress, can she now update the House on what changes she has secured to her deal?

Theresa May: I travelled to Europe yesterday and met several Heads of Government, the Commission and the European Council, precisely because I had listened to concerns raised in the House. I took them to Europe, and no one I met yesterday is in any doubt about the strength of concern in the House about the duration of the backstop. I am interested that the right hon. Gentleman wants to know what progress we have made, because actually he could not care less what I bring back from Brussels. He has been clear that whatever comes back from Brussels he will vote against it, because all he wants to do is create chaos in our economy, division in our society and damage to our economy. That’s Labour. That’s Corbyn.

Jeremy Corbyn: It is very clear that nothing has changed. If the Prime Minister needed any clarification about the temporary nature of the backstop, she need not have gone to Europe; she could have just asked her Attorney General, who said it endured indefinitely.
As the Prime Minister may recall, when she left on her journey, we were about to start day four of a five-day debate on the deal. Since she has not achieved any changes, either to the withdrawal agreement or to the future partnership, will she now confirm that we will have the concluding days of debate and votes within the next seven days, before the House rises for the Christmas recess?

Theresa May: I had discussions with people yesterday, and I have made some progress, but of course there is an EU Council meeting and further discussions are to be held. The right hon. Gentleman asks about the meaningful vote. The meaningful vote has been deferred, and the date of that vote will be announced in the normal way. The business motion will be agreed and discussed in the usual way. [Hon. Members: “When?”] I will tell Opposition Members when. We had a meaningful vote in the referendum in 2016 and, if he wants a meaningful date, I will give him one: 29 March 2019, when we leave the European Union.

Jeremy Corbyn: That is totally and utterly unacceptable to this House. This House agreed a programme motion. This House agreed the five days of debate. This House agreed when the vote would take place. The Government unilaterally pulled that and denied the House the chance of a vote on this crucial matter. The Prime Minister and her Government have already been found in contempt of Parliament. Her behaviour today is just contemptuous of this Parliament and this process. Her appalling behaviour needs to be held to account by the House. The people  of this country are more and more concerned about  the ongoing chaos at the centre of her Government. [Interruption.]

John Bercow: Order. We must have calm on both sides of the House. [Interruption.] Order. The questions will be heard, however long it takes, and so will the answers. Do not try to shout down. All you do is wear out your voices, and you will not succeed. Amen. End of subject.

Jeremy Corbyn: When the Prime Minister made her Lancaster House speech, she set out her negotiating objectives, and they are worth quoting. The first objective is crucial:
“We will provide certainty wherever we can.”
Does this look or feel like certainty? Can she mark her own homework?

Theresa May: Indeed we have at every stage—the right hon. Gentleman said we would not get agreement in December, and we did; he said we would not get the implementation period in March, and we did; he said we would not get a withdrawal agreement and political declaration, and we did. Concerns have been raised about the backstop. As I said, we continue those discussions, and no one yesterday was left in any doubt about the strength of feeling in the House. Of course, we all know what his answer to the backstop is: ignore the referendum and stay in the EU.

Jeremy Corbyn: If this is an agreement, why will the Prime Minister not put that agreement to a vote of this House?
The Federation of Small Businesses says that planning ahead is impossible. Many, many other people around the country find planning ahead impossible, because all that they see is chaos at the heart of Government and an inability to plan anything for the future. Yesterday the cross-party Exiting the European Union Committee, including Conservative Members, unanimously found that the Prime Minister’s deal
“fails to offer sufficient clarity or certainty about the future.”
Will the Prime Minister give the country at least some certainty and categorically rule out the option of no deal?

Theresa May: The way to ensure that there is no no deal is to agree a deal. The right hon. Gentleman talks about the impact on businesses. I will tell him what will have an impact on businesses up and down the country: what we learnt just a few days ago, that the shadow Chancellor wants to change the law so that—[Interruption.]

John Bercow: Order. The Prime Minister’s reply must be heard, and it will be.

Theresa May: Businesses will be affected by the fact that the shadow Chancellor wants to change the law so that trade unions in this country can go on strike in solidarity with any strike anywhere in the world. That may be solidarity with trade unions. It is not solidarity with small businesses, and it is not solidarity with the ordinary working people who would pay the price of Labour.

Jeremy Corbyn: My question was, would the Prime Minister rule out no deal? She has failed to do that.
Let me tell the Prime Minister that this sorry saga is frustrating for businesses, for workers, and, actually, for many of those behind her as well. Many of them are trying to work constructively to find a solution. Yesterday, her former Brexit Minister said that a new customs union with the EU “could be the basis for a parliamentary consensus”. When will she start listening to people who actually want to find a constructive solution, rather than denying Parliament the right to debate it and vote on her deal?

Theresa May: We all know one group of people who do not want to find a constructive solution: the Labour party’s Front Bench. That is what we see on the other side of the Chamber: no plan, no clue, no Brexit.

Jeremy Corbyn: The time for dithering and delay is over. The Prime Minister has negotiated her deal—[Interruption.]

John Bercow: Order. The right hon. Gentleman will  be heard.

Jeremy Corbyn: The time for dithering and delay by this Government is over. The Prime Minister has negotiated her deal. She has told us that it is the best and only deal available. There can be no more excuses, no more running away: put it before Parliament and let us have the vote. Whatever happens with the Prime Minister’s Conservative leadership vote today is utterly irrelevant to the lives of people across our country. It does nothing to solve the Government’s inability to get a deal that works for the whole country. The Prime Minister has already been found to be in contempt of Parliament. Will she now put this deal before Parliament and halt the escalating crisis which is so damaging to the lives of so many people in this country?

Theresa May: We all know from the multiplicity of changes in plan that we have seen from the Labour party that there is one thing we can be sure about: whatever U-turn comes next in Labour’s policy, the right hon. Gentleman will send out—[Interruption.] He will send out—[Interruption.]

John Bercow: Order. I said a moment ago that the Leader of the Opposition must be heard, and, belatedly, he was; and the Prime Minister will be heard.

Theresa May: Whatever change in Labour policy we see, the right hon. Gentleman will send out his henchman to reveal it all to the world: “The Inconstant Gardiner.” [Interruption.] Somebody will explain that to the Leader of the Opposition a little later. The right hon. Gentleman should be honest with people about his position: he could not care less about Brexit; what he wants to do is bring down the Government, create uncertainty, sow division and crash our economy. The biggest threat to people and to this country is not in leaving the EU; it is a Corbyn Government.

Paul Masterton: A few weeks ago Ben McKenzie from Neilston, a pupil at Eastwood High School, took his own life, having been the victim of cruel online threats and bullying on social media and his mobile phone; he was just 13 years old. Nearly £10,000 has been raised in his memory for Beautiful Inside and Out, a Scottish charity that supports the families of victims of child suicide. Can the Prime Minister set out what this Government are going to do to tackle cyber-bullying not just to support and empower victims, but to deter and prevent children who might be engaging in these acts without realising the consequences they can have, because no family should be enduring a Christmas without their child due to suicide?

Theresa May: My hon. Friend has raised an extremely serious issue and I am sure the thoughts and condolences of the whole House are with Ben’s family at this terrible time after this terrible tragedy. We need to address cyber-bullying in both ways, as my hon. Friend said: both working with the internet companies on what is put out on their platforms and with schools to help people recognise this material and deal with it, and supporting those children who could, as my hon. Friend said, be the victims or who might be carrying out these attacks. Our consultation last year on internet  safety showed that despite a range of voluntary initiatives and good work by a range of charities—I commend the work of the Scottish charity Beautiful Inside and Out and the amount of money that has been raised—this remains a serious issue for millions of people. I know the Scottish Government have been addressing this with their “Respect for All” approach, and we have funded the UK Safer Internet Centre, which is providing guidance for schools, but we should all be taking this issue seriously and the Government will continue to work on this.

Ian Blackford: May I associate myself with the remarks of the Prime Minister on cyber-bullying and indeed on the terrible tragedy yesterday in Strasbourg?
We were promised “strong and stable” and we were promised a vote on the Brexit deal, but this Prime Minister cannot even do her own job because of the Tory civil war. This Government are an embarrassment. Christmas is just two weeks away; will the Prime Minister bring forward her meaningful vote on the Brexit deal next week?

Theresa May: As I have said, we are having discussions with European leaders and others and those discussions will continue. What matters is that they are in no doubt about the strength of feeling in this House on the issue of the duration of the backstop and they are in no doubt about the strength of feeling in this House that that should be addressed in a way that has legal force, and that is what we are discussing and continuing to negotiate with the European Union. As I said earlier, the date of the deferred vote and debate on this will be announced in due course in the normal way.

Ian Blackford: That is contemptuous of Parliament. Parliament voted for a meaningful vote; we should be having the vote and it should be happening next week. This Government are a farce: the Tory party is in chaos, the Prime Minister is a disgrace through her actions. The reality is that people across Scotland and the UK are seeing this today. Prime Minister, take responsibility, do the right thing: resign.

Theresa May: The right hon. Gentleman makes his remarks about deferring the vote, but it is precisely because I and my colleagues in Government have listened to the views of people across this House that we are pursuing this issue further with the European Union. That is being respectful of the views that have been raised in this House.

Mark Pawsey: Many businesses up and down the country have put their plans on hold while waiting for us here in Parliament to agree our future trading relationship with our biggest and closest neighbour. Does the Prime Minister agree that their interests, and those of their workers, their suppliers and the country as a whole, are best served by concluding the agreement with the remaining 27 and by those on this side of the House supporting her in the vote this evening?

Theresa May: I thank my hon. Friend for his comments, and I agree with him, particularly on the need to ensure that we do not increase or create more uncertainty. The public voted to leave the EU and they  want us to secure a deal that delivers on that result. We should not risk handing control of the Brexit negotiations to Opposition MPs in Parliament, because that would risk delaying or even stopping Brexit. None of that would be in the national interest, so I think we need to get on and deliver a good Brexit for the country.

Ellie Reeves: When I stood for election, I vowed not to vote for any Brexit deal that was not in the best interests of Lewisham West and Penge. After pulling the Brexit vote, the Prime Minister must now concede that her deal is doomed. The House and her own party appear to have no confidence in her, but will she have confidence in the people and give them a say with a people’s vote, including an option to remain in the EU?

Theresa May: We have deferred the vote on the agreement. On the issue that the hon. Lady raises about putting the vote to the people, I say to her, as I said to the hon. Member for Bristol East (Kerry McCarthy) and as I have said on many occasions in this House, that the House put its faith in the votes of the people of this country when we decided to give them the referendum in 2016. People voted to leave the European Union and it is now our duty to deliver on that.

Ranil Jayawardena: This House has a duty to ensure that the next generation live better lives tomorrow than we live today, so how does my right hon. Friend respond to the audit carried out by the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists that found that three quarters of the hundreds of babies who die or suffer brain damage each year could be saved by better care? What steps are the Government taking to ensure that every expectant mother and unborn baby receives appropriate monitoring?

Theresa May: I thank my hon. Friend for raising that important issue. I know that it is close to the hearts of many Members of the House. Every death or injury of a child is a tragedy, and we have a commitment to halving the rates of stillbirth, neonatal death and brain injury after birth by 2025. That is supported by system-wide action under our national maternity safety strategy. We are increasing midwifery training places by 25% and investing millions of pounds in training for staff and in new safety equipment to ensure that the NHS can provide world-class care for mothers and babies, but we recognise that we need to continue to ensure that we do all we can, and I can give my hon. Friend the reassurance that we will do that.

Matthew Pennycook: As the right hon. Lady reflects on her premiership, may I ask her which of the following judgments she most regrets: laying down red lines before the Brexit talks had even begun; wasting precious negotiating time on a general election; or consistently failing to face down the hardliners on her own Benches and reach out to forge a consensus in this House and the country?

Theresa May: I will tell the hon. Gentleman the judgment that was the right one. It was to accept the vote of the people in the referendum, to deliver on the vote of the people in the referendum and to deliver a good Brexit for the future of this country.

Damien Moore: Small businesses are the backbone of my constituency. In the Budget, the Chancellor announced a revitalisation fund for our high streets. May I ask my right hon. Friend when it will be made available? It will prove a vital lifeline for my constituency, because of the anti-business policies of Labour-controlled Sefton Council.

Theresa May: I thank my hon. Friend for highlighting the help that we have announced for the high street. He is absolutely right that the Leader of the Opposition may stand up and claim to be interested in business and small businesses, but we so often see Labour councils up and down the country doing exactly the opposite. We have provided £675 million in the future high streets fund so that plans can be made to help to make high streets and town centres fit for the future, and we will be publishing a prospectus for the fund shortly.

Catherine West: Can the Prime Minister confirm which of these is worse: no deal or no Brexit?

Leo Docherty: Or a Labour Government.

Theresa May: It is important that we deliver on Brexit for the people of this country. I believe that we should do that with a good deal with the European Union, and I believe that that is what we have negotiated. I also believe, as my hon. Friend the Member for Aldershot (Leo Docherty) said from a sedentary position, that the worst thing for this country would be a Labour Government.

Kenneth Clarke: At a time of grave national crisis on an issue that we all agree is of huge importance to future generations, can my right hon. Friend think of anything more unhelpful, irrelevant and irresponsible than for the Conservative party to embark on weeks of a Conservative leadership election?

Theresa May: My right hon. and learned Friend has raised an important issue. It is about the impact that the weeks of that campaign would have on the decision that the House has to take and that we have to take as a country in relation to leaving the European Union, because there is no doubt that the process would go beyond the legislated date of 21 January. That would mean that one of the first things that the new leader would have to do—were a new leader to come in—would be either to extend article 50 or rescind it, which would mean either delaying or stopping Brexit.

Siobhain McDonagh: Away from the madness of the Prime Minister’s own MPs, may I welcome her back to the real world? Last week, Marian was forced to queue outside St George’s hospital, Tooting, with a badly infected left leg because the A&E was full. Knowing what happened to my constituent, will the Prime Minister tell me how long that queue will be should the local NHS get its way and move the A&E at St Helier hospital to leafy, wealthy Belmont?

Theresa May: I am concerned to hear the case that the hon. Lady raises about her constituent. It is absolutely right that decisions on delivery of services should be taken by local clinicians, because they are best placed to assess local need. I understand that the local NHS is looking at the considerable challenges facing Epsom and St Helier University Hospitals NHS Trust and at the options for future services, but that process is at an early stage. Knowing the hon. Lady as I do from when we both sat on Merton Council, I am sure that she will continue to raise the concerns of her constituents, and I would encourage her to do so.

Julian Knight: Shortly, 34,000 copies of “Your Money Matters”, a free personal finance textbook, will wing their way to every secondary school in the land. Will my right hon. Friend join me in saying thank you to Martin Lewis, who is its funder, Young Money, which is the organisation behind it, the all-party parliamentary group on financial education for young people, which I chair, and, not least, the Department for Education for making this fantastic resource for our young people happen?

Theresa May: My hon. Friend has done an important thing today by raising people’s awareness of this booklet, which will be extremely important for secondary schools. It is a really good piece of work, and I congratulate all those involved. I know that my hon. Friend, through his chairmanship of the APPG, has taken this matter seriously and has been championing it for a long time. I hope that he is pleased to see this piece of work being done, and I am sure that he will want to carry on to ensure that financial education is taking place and that young people are prepared for their future lives.

Mary Creagh: The economy is stalling, business investment is falling, and we have the grotesque—

John Bercow: Order. I could not care less what somebody chuntering from a sedentary position says is or is not the truth; what I care about is that the hon. Lady will not be shouted down any more than any other Member in this place will be shouted down. Be quiet and listen.

Mary Creagh: The economy is stalling, business investment is plummeting and we have the grotesque spectacle of Tory MPs putting party interest before the public interest. If the Prime Minister survives tonight’s vote, will she finally rule out no deal, face down her hard Brexiteers, let this place vote down her deal and put it back to the public in a people’s vote?

Theresa May: First, if the hon. Lady wants to ensure no deal, the way to ensure no deal is to agree a deal. That is the best way to ensure there is not no deal. She talks about the economy: employment is at a record high, wages are growing and we have had 23 consecutive quarters of growth, the longest run in the G7. That is a balanced approach to the economy. That is Conservatives delivering for the people of this country.

Patrick McLoughlin: May I ask my right hon. Friend to take her mind back to September 1997, when a referendum was held in  Wales? The result of that referendum was 50.3% in favour of an Assembly and 49.7% against, on a turnout of 50%. Nobody questioned whether we should accept the referendum. Does that hold any future reference  for us?

Theresa May: I thank my right hon. Friend for making a very important point about the principle that was accepted at that time, which was, however small the margin, the overall result of the vote should be accepted and acted on.

Gill Furniss: Last week, I hosted an event to raise money for Hallam FM’s Mission Christmas, a charity doing fantastic work helping children in need in my constituency, and for the local food bank. Indeed, many of the 41% of children living in poverty in my community will really need help this Christmas. What message does the Prime Minister have for those working hard to make ends meet but who will find themselves forced to rely on food banks for their family’s Christmas meal and Mission Christmas for their children’s presents?

Theresa May: First, may I say how good it is that Hallam FM has been doing this work? There are many charities up and down the country that work to provide a better Christmas than many children would otherwise have. That is important. We do not want to see people relying on food banks, but the way to ensure that people are able to provide for themselves without having to rely on food banks is to ensure that people are in work, that that work is well paid and that work always pays, which is exactly what we are doing.

Maggie Throup: Residents in Erewash are clear that we need a strong Government to deliver on Brexit and on our domestic agenda. Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is time for us to unite on the Conservative Benches, as the real threat to our great nation is the party opposite and a Labour Government?

Theresa May: I echo my hon. Friend’s comments. Many members of the public want us to get on with Brexit and to ensure that we are delivering for them on the domestic agenda, like the record number of new homes we have seen being built—the best number ever, bar one year, in the last 31 years. It is important that we get on to that domestic agenda, and to do that we must unite as a party and bring our country back together again. She is absolutely right that the greatest threat to the jobs, livelihoods and futures of her constituents, and constituents around the United Kingdom, would be a Labour Government.

Colleen Fletcher: Last month, a 16-year-old boy was tragically killed in a knife attack in my constituency. This came as knife crime has almost doubled in Coventry over the last five years. I know that some good multi-agency work is happening in this field, but does the Prime Minister still think that we have enough police officers on our streets to be able to fight crime and the fear of crime?

Theresa May: I extend my condolences to the family of the hon. Lady’s constituent who suffered this terrible attack. Obviously there is a concern, and I recognise that concern, about the rise in violent crime,  which is why the Government have produced the serious violence strategy. Members on both sides of the House, on a cross-party basis, sit on the serious violence taskforce. We are giving extra powers to the police to tackle knife crime through the Offensive Weapons Bill, and we have strengthened firearms control through the Policing and Crime Act 2017.
This is not just about police action. We have announced the £200 million youth endowment fund, which will help to work with young people who otherwise might find themselves drawn into gangs and the use of knives, to prevent them from doing so and to prevent these crimes from happening in the first place.

David Evennett: Does my right hon. Friend share my concerns and those of my constituents about the further delays and increased costs of Crossrail, and the failures of Transport for London and the Labour Mayor of London?

Theresa May: I absolutely share my right hon. Friend’s concerns and his constituents’ concerns, and indeed my constituency is also affected by the delay of Crossrail. Yes, we should recognise the role that TfL and the Labour Mayor of London have played in this. We want to see Crossrail. It is going to be of benefit to my right hon. Friend’s constituents and mine, and the Labour Mayor needs to get his finger out on this.

Jim McMahon: In 1997, the British Prime Minister issued an apology to the people of Ireland for Britain’s historic role in the great famine—a famine that saw 1 million people die and 1 million people be displaced from their homeland. That apology sent out a powerful and important message. Will this Prime Minister condemn any notion and any suggestion that food shortages in Ireland will be used to strengthen Britain’s negotiating hand during the Brexit negotiations?

Theresa May: I am happy to absolutely give that assurance. We would not use that issue in any sense in the negotiating strategy. We want to work with the Irish Government to ensure that we are providing a good Brexit for the UK and for Ireland, and I believe that would be a good Brexit for the European Union.

Neil O'Brien: One of my constituents in Oadby has written to me to say, “I voted for Brexit and I urge you to support our Prime Minister unreservedly and vote for this Brexit deal.” Another constituent in Great Glen says, “The Prime Minister has done a terrific job in trying circumstances. The headbangers from all sides and the supine attitude of the Labour party has meant she has had an impossible job, but she has done so well.” Finally, a third from Saddington writes, “I am an employer of 30 people in the Harborough constituency. To vote against the deal will cause political chaos and open the door to the worst possible scenario for this country—a far left Labour Government.” Does the Prime Minister agree with me that my constituents have got a lot more common sense than the Members opposite, who want to stop Brexit and fundamentally damage our democracy?

Theresa May: I think, Mr Speaker, that this can be an occasion where I give a very short answer: yes.

Rachael Maskell: The self-serving chaos unleashed on this Parliament this week is emblematic of the way in which this Government have consistently treated the people of our country. In the light of the Prime Minister’s conduct, the pound has fallen by 2% in the past 48 hours—her Budget’s equivalent of running the entire NHS for six weeks. Does she believe that this is a price worth paying for her Brexit deal?

Theresa May: The hon. Lady talks about what the Government are doing for the NHS. It is this Government who are establishing a 10-year plan for the sustainability of the NHS and putting the biggest cash boost in its history into the NHS to ensure it is there for all our constituents, now and in the future.

Andrew Selous: Does the Prime Minister agree that we all owe a huge debt of gratitude to our police officers, prison officers and probation staff, who are in the frontline of keeping us all safe, which is the first duty of any Government? In that regard, may I ask her to take a close and personal interest in the 2019-20 police funding settlement?

Theresa May: First, let me agree with my hon. Friend; we do owe an enormous debt of gratitude to all those who are on the frontline, putting themselves potentially at risk for us—not only police officers, but prison officers and probation officers, whom he referenced. I assure him that, as he has, I have been looking, with the Home Secretary, at the 2019-20 police funding settlement.

Caroline Lucas: The plotters behind her know that any replacement Prime Minister would face exactly the same party arithmetic and exactly the same deadlock on Brexit. This deadlock can be changed only by going back to the people. Today, The Times also said that is her only chance of saving her job and saving her deal. So can she tell the House: what exactly is she afraid of?

Theresa May: The issue is that this House overwhelmingly voted to give the choice to the British people as to whether or not to leave the European   Union. The British people chose to leave the European Union and I strongly believe it is the duty of Members of this House to deliver on that vote.

Kevin Hollinrake: What does the Prime Minister consider most important: playing parliamentary parlour games in this place, or protecting jobs and businesses by going back to the negotiating table and thrashing out a deal that will pass through this House?

Theresa May: It is in the interests of employers and in the interests of people whose jobs are at stake to make sure that we get a good deal with the European Union. That is why it is important that I was in Europe yesterday and will continue to be in Europe doing exactly as my hon. Friend says: negotiating the deal that I believe can get the support of this House to ensure we can move forward and deliver a good Brexit.

Vincent Cable: Does the Prime Minister judge that it is more welcome or more appropriate to face a no confidence motion from her Back Benchers or from the Leader of the Opposition?

Theresa May: Obviously, one of those will take place. What I think is important for everybody in this House is to recognise that we have, I believe, a solemn duty to deliver on the result of the 2016 referendum. I believe the best way of doing that is with a good Brexit deal with the European Union that protects jobs and honours the referendum. I believe that is the deal we have negotiated.

Julian Knight: On a point of order, Mr Speaker.

John Bercow: Order. I say to the hon. Gentleman, whose mellifluous tones we listened to only a few moments ago, that I am very happy to entertain a point of order, but that it should come after the urgent question. I am sure he will retain the thrust of it in his head and he will share it with the House in due course. We will await that with eager anticipation, but not until we have had the urgent question from Emily Thornberry.

INSTITUTE FOR STATECRAFT: INTEGRITY INITIATIVE

Emily Thornberry: (Urgent Question): To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs to make a statement on his Department’s funding of the Institute for Statecraft’s integrity initiative.

Alan Duncan: The Institute for Statecraft is an independent UK-based charity whose work seeks to improve governance and enhance national security. It runs a project called the integrity initiative, which is working to counter disinformation overseas by bringing together groups of experts to analyse and discuss the problem posed by Russian disinformation.
The Government are funding this initiative with nearly £2 million this financial year. That funding covers its activity outside the UK and it does not fund any activity within the UK; nor does it fund the management of the integrity initiative’s social media account. Recent reports that Foreign Office funding has been used to support party political activity in the UK are therefore wholly untrue.

Emily Thornberry: Thank you, Mr Speaker, for granting this urgent question. I thank the Minister of State for his opening remarks.
Let me make it clear at the outset that I have no interest today in debating the integrity initiative’s purpose of countering the very real threat of interference in western democracies and the spread of disinformation by the Russian state. If a debate needs to happen on how that objective is best pursued, it is best left for another day. The issue before us today is much more simple and fundamental: it is a cardinal rule of public life in our country that official resources should not be used for political purposes, a rule we saw symbolised this very morning when the Prime Minister delivered her statement outside Downing Street with the usual Government coat of arms removed from her lectern because of the political nature of her statement. There is, I am afraid, absolutely no doubt that the publicly funded integrity initiative has broken that rule repeatedly by using its Twitter accounts to disseminate articles attacking the integrity of Conservative and Labour officials, of Conservative peers and, repeatedly, of the Leader of Her Majesty’s Opposition.
I greatly welcome the Minister’s statement on Monday, in which he totally condemned such behaviour by a publicly funded organisation, and said that not only must it stop, but that he wanted to know
“why on earth it happened in the first place”.
That is doubly important in this case, because the integrity initiative’s use of Twitter as a tool for disseminating information has not been a fringe activity, but is an integral part of its applications for Foreign Office funding over the past two years. Indeed, the budget for its agreed objectives of increasing reporting in the media and expanding the impact of its website and Twitter account amounted to £275,000 in this financial year. In the list of key deliverables it promised the Foreign Office this year, it stated explicitly that one of its instruments of delivery will be its
“600-plus Twitter followers, including influential players”.
In the light of all that, I hope that the Minister of State can answer some more questions to explain, as he put it, why on earth that misuse of public funds has taken place. First, were Foreign Office officials monitoring the integrity initiative’s social media output, given that it was an integral part of the activity for which it was being funded? If so, why did they not flag up concerns to him about the dissemination of personal attacks? If not, why was this misuse of public funds going unchecked? Secondly, does the funding agreement governing the integrity initiative make clear that its use of funds and its public statements must comply with Cabinet Office rules? Finally, if the Government intend to renew that funding for the next financial year, what arrangements and agreements will be put in place to ensure that nothing of this sort ever happens again?

Alan Duncan: It is a matter of regret, Mr Speaker, that the right hon. Lady did not listen to the answer that I gave a moment ago. Let me explain to the House what has been going on. The Institute for Statecraft was hacked several weeks ago and numerous documents were published and amplified by Kremlin news channels. The Russian state media campaign that followed fits with a wider pattern of Russian disinformation against the UK. This campaign’s objective is clear: it is yet another example of Russian disinformation intended  to confuse audiences and discredit an organisation  that is working independently to tackle the threat of disinformation. The current Russian disinformation activity is precisely the sort of disinformation that this project is designed to counter. It is regrettable, but perhaps rather unsurprising, that some have been fooled, and have used this to make accusations about British politics in exactly the way hoped for in this malign activity.
While that is going on in the UK, the sort of activity that we do fund is doing its utmost to counter Russian disinformation overseas, which is undermining democracy and its institutions ever more widely across the world. The FCO has given a grant to the Institute for Statecraft this financial year of nearly £2 million. Our agreement, written into the contract with the institute, specifically states that the grant must not be used to support activity intended to influence, or attempt to influence, the UK Parliament, Government or political parties. We have not seen any evidence that the integrity initiative has breached this obligation, and the accusation that Government money has been used for domestic political purposes is utterly unfounded.

Emily Thornberry: What?

Alan Duncan: I say once again to the right hon. Lady that no Foreign Office funding is used for the initiative’s UK domestic activity. She can look at me as aghast as she likes, but the money that comes from the Foreign Office is used for activity overseas, and she should accept that as the—[Interruption.] If she does not accept it, she should say in terms what she is accusing me of, because that would be a breach of the forms of the House.

Kevin Foster: It would clearly be concerning if any Foreign Office money was being used for party political activities, so I welcome the Minister’s reassurances. Will he confirm that an investigation has been launched to see what has happened, and that when a proper, independent investigation has come to proper conclusions, he will take action on them?

Alan Duncan: Perhaps one of the accurate things that the right hon. Member for Islington South and Finsbury (Emily Thornberry) said was that when I was interviewed on Radio 4 and this matter was sprung on me, I said that I would look into it straightaway, and I did. I have established the facts and I am satisfied that our money does not go towards funding any kind of UK domestic activity.

Angela Rayner: Rubbish!

Alan Duncan: Mr Speaker, I have been accused of speaking rubbish by the hon. Lady. She should mark her words carefully before she bellows untruths at me across the House.

John Bercow: Order. Nobody should bellow across the House from either side. I know that the right hon. Minister of State is very well able to look after himself. The word rubbish is sadly used relatively frequently in the House, and it is certainly not unparliamentary. It is a matter of taste rather than of order. I am glad to see the right hon. Minister of State breaking out into a smile. It would be more seemly if colleagues would conduct these exchanges in a slightly more restrained fashion. To that end, I now look in hope—possibly in anticipation—to Mr Stephen Gethins.

Stephen Gethins: I wish to put on record that a number of FCO-funded non-governmental organisations do extraordinary work in the most difficult circumstances. Before I came to this place, I worked in the south Caucasus and the western Balkans, where many of those organisations do that extraordinary work. They deserve our support for doing that but, more than anything else, they need to know that the Foreign Office has full openness and transparency. Our most powerful tool against any Russian misinformation is respect for the rule of law, the democratic process and, critically, transparency; we owe that to those working in these organisations. The Minister will be well aware of many people who work in very difficult circumstances and find themselves at the hard edge of Russian disinformation campaigns.
We need to have confidence in our democratic process. There should be no undermining of politicians, be they Labour, Scottish National party or Conservative, or of anybody else. What further steps will the Minister take to ensure that impartiality and integrity goes to the very heart of all funding that comes from the Foreign Office? I hope that he will consider the tone of the question I am putting to him, and will agree with me that those who are doing difficult work in difficult conflict environments deserve the full support of this House, and to know that the Foreign Office has their back.

Alan Duncan: I thank the hon. Gentleman for both what he asked and the tone in which he asked it. He has experience of these issues and I share in pretty well everything that he just said. The integrity initiative, in its activity abroad, endeavours to deliver exactly that sort of transparency to counter fake news and disinformation, in the way that I think the hon. Gentleman and all of us would hope. Indeed, the right hon. Member for Islington South and Finsbury said in her opening remarks that she would support that sort of activity.
What is more, this charity is incorporated in Scotland, so it is subject to the Scottish Charity Regulator, and that kind of non-partisan activity is required. Within the UK, the charity does some automatic retweeting of stories that relate to Russia. Of course, on some occasions that includes mentions of the right hon. Leader of the Opposition; equally, there could be mention of a Conservative, as indeed has happened on many occasions. It has been judged to be no more than non-partisan repetition of stories that relate to Russia.

Desmond Swayne: I am reassured to know that we are taking on Russian misinformation. I am right to be, aren’t I?

Alan Duncan: Yes, my right hon. Friend is right to be. The whole House should appreciate that this is an ever-increasing challenge, and one that we need to meet in the cyber field, as we do in the information field. That is what we are doing.

Emily Thornberry: In a united way.

Alan Duncan: The right hon. Gentleman says from a sedentary position “in a united way”—yes, and she could add to that unity by recognising the truth of what I have said, instead of denying it in her normal way.

Emily Thornberry: I’m not a gentleman. I have never been a gentleman.

Hilary Benn: The Minister said that the Institute for Statecraft was hacked several weeks ago. Will he clarify for the House whether that hacking extended to the Twitter account of the integrity initiative, which has been retweeting articles that are undoubtedly critical of my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition, and the Opposition’s policy?

Alan Duncan: The answer is that I do not know, but if information is on a Twitter account, it is publicly available anyway. It is the information that was not publicly available that was hacked, and I deplore that hack. That is what is now being used by Russian-inspired sources to create the sort of encounters we are witnessing here today.

Richard Graham: This is the first time I have come across an accusation from a Labour party spokesperson that retweeting a New Statesman article was smears against Labour. Despite the fact that the Government’s financial support has nothing to do with the institute’s UK activities, will my right hon. Friend reassure Members that if any evidence is found that the institute is involved in efforts to discredit the Labour party, he would unequivocally condemn such behaviour?

Alan Duncan: Yes. If our funding were being used for that, then yes, I would condemn it, and the contact would be withdrawn. [Interruption.] I hear again from a Labour Front Bencher an accusation, which I have categorically denied today, that Foreign Office funding is paying for UK Twitter activity and the management of the institute’s account. I say to the hon. Member for Middlesbrough (Andy McDonald), who has been shouting  at me from the Front Bench, that he should withdraw that accusation, because I have spoken in honesty to the House, and he should recognise that.

Christine Jardine: Russia has been pushing the boundaries with its international interference and disruption, and we have seen incidents such as Salisbury and what is happening in Ukraine. Our defences against cyber-attack will be depleted if we leave the European Union, so will the Minister tell the House what plans have been drawn up to increase the skills and resources required to counter future cyber-attacks?

Alan Duncan: We are one of the leaders in cyber-defence; indeed, we assist other countries in learning the techniques necessary to protect against the sort of hacking that we are discussing in part today. I am confident, and I have enormous confidence in the professional competence of our officials in defending this country from cyber-attacks and malign cyber-activity.

Julian Lewis: How sure are we that the Russians were behind this hack? If we are sure, what are we going to do by way of response?

Alan Duncan: One of the responses is, of course, to counter in the sort of way that we are doing in the House today. Unfortunately, I do not have as many allies across the Chamber as I would like to have in so doing. We know the origin of the attack because it takes exactly the same pattern that we have seen in previous attacks.

Mike Gapes: The Russians are engaged in hybrid cyber-warfare against our country and many others. We seem to play by different rules from theirs. What are we doing to counter the nefarious activities of the Russian propaganda channel RT and of Sputnik?

Alan Duncan: We do indeed play by the rules, because we have integrity in upholding the rule of law and acting within the confines of our own law. Some might say that that puts us at a disadvantage, because other people break the rules to try to get the better of us, but we have strong cyber-defences. The kind of activity that the integrity initiative undertakes is designed to counter the sort of activity to which the hon. Gentleman rightly refers. It saddens and dismays me that I do not have the full support of those on the Opposition Front Bench in defending what we are doing.

Julian Knight: I welcome the absolute clarity of the Minister’s statement and his refutation of the allegations. I also welcome the work of the Institute for Statecraft. Does the Minister agree that we need to double down on that work, because as the Digital, Culture, Media and Sport Committee has shown, the reality is that Russian disinformation is a danger to our democracy and our very way of life? We should not fall into Russian traps and aid the sort of paranoia that we have seen in the coverage of this matter in the likes of The Canary and that type of publication.

Alan Duncan: I fully agree. We should not be taken for a sucker. If we allow malign forces to divide us and try to rule over us, that is what will have happened to us. Again, I urge the Front Benchers of Her Majesty’s Opposition to appreciate that this is a proper part of government activity—within the rules, according to a contract—and it behoves them to accept the assurances that have been so clearly and openly given today.

Tom Brake: On the allegations of Russian influence, is the Minister aware of concerns about some activities of peers in the House of Lords who are representing Russian companies, including Lord Truscott, who is the remunerated chairman of the advisory board of Russian Gold Fund, which is a private equity investment fund about which it is possible to find out precisely nothing, including who is investing in it and where the money is going?

Alan Duncan: It is not for me to comment on the propriety or otherwise of any Member of the House of Lords. It has its own standards and rules, and it is for that House to apply those rules as it sees fit.

Bob Blackman: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on the robust way in which he has answered these questions. Will he ensure that the Institute for Statecraft reviews its editorial policy so that we counter Russian fake news and disinformation and so that it does not fall foul of criticising UK politicians?

Alan Duncan: I am very happy to say yes. I can assure my hon. Friend and the House that when it comes to challenging officials on any issue, I do so very robustly, to establish the highest standards of activity in everything the Foreign Office does. Therefore, in response to this situation, I have certainly been grilling officials to find out exactly what is happening. I have asked them to engage with the Institute for Statecraft to look at its editorial policy to ensure that there is, and will remain, an absolutely clear division between its domestic activity under its charitable rules and any overseas activity that we fund and is subject to the contract we have.

Chris Bryant: I completely support any attempts to deal with misinformation campaigns, whether they originate from Russia, Saudi Arabia, the hard right in the United States of America or Syria—or, for that matter, in Catalonia last year. I want to make sure that a project such as this really works, but it will not have the confidence of the whole nation unless we are able to see some changes in the way in which it operates in this case. I would have more confidence if the Government were to engage in the kind of investigation that is ongoing in the United States of America into Russian involvement in democratic process in this country. Why can we not have that investigation?

Alan Duncan: Again, that is an area where there is an enormous amount of work going on in the Government. I share the hon. Gentleman’s concerns. We have seen all sorts of social media activity and we have seen completely verified activity of Russian intervention in democratic processes, such as the election in Montenegro and perhaps the referendum in Catalonia. That is in addition to the full spectrum of activity that we are specifically discussing in this urgent question.

Christopher Chope: Will my right hon. Friend explain why the Government are still not in favour of expelling the Russian Federation from the Council of Europe? The Russian Federation is in breach of all its international obligations, yet the Government are not doing what they could do, which is to expel it from the Council of Europe.

Alan Duncan: I understand what my hon. Friend is saying, but a matter of that sort is for the Council of Europe and I know that the parliamentary representatives are discussing it. Russia has not paid its dues and this question is being discussed regularly.

Jenny Chapman: May I just observe that the Minister seems to be rather affronted by the anger felt on this side of the House, particularly by my Front-Bench colleagues, on this issue? He really need not; he ought to be sharing in that anger. Does he think that the investigation that he has undertaken so far is sufficient, or does he plan any further inquiry into this matter? Does he think he has done enough?

Alan Duncan: No, I do not share in the anger because the accusations that are being made are misplaced and have been categorically denied. Right hon. Ladies and Gentlemen in particular should accept the assurance on that basis.

Ian Murray: I am delighted that the Foreign Office is spending money trying to counter the disinformation and fake news that is coming not just from Russia but, as my hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) said, from all over the world. What comments has the Minister given to this organisation to impress upon it that its domestic use of its Twitter account, whether right or wrong, may be undermining what it is trying to do internationally?

Alan Duncan: I actually think that that is a perfectly fair question about whether the domestic activity of the organisation somehow taints the legitimate and Foreign Office-funded international activity. What I resent very deeply is Members of this House not accepting the assurances given that Foreign Office funding does not pay for that domestic activity. In the organisation’s defence, I think that all it does is to forward from already open website articles anything that happens to mention Russia. It is deemed to have done so on a non-partisan basis, so in as much as it may occasionally mention the Leader of the Opposition, it could also mention anyone on the Conservative side. That distinction ought to be accepted and understood, particularly by Opposition Front Benchers. I have undertaken to conduct exactly that sort of review, because it is important that our activity is clear, distinct and not in any way muddled with the sort of activity that the hon. Gentleman is describing.

Ian Lucas: Will the Minister clarify when the Foreign Office became aware that the account had been hacked? Was it before or after the press coverage?

Alan Duncan: I suspect, although I am partly speculating, that the Foreign Office probably knew fairly quickly. The matter did not necessarily come to Ministers  straightaway, probably because it was not deemed to be that serious. Unfortunately, these things happen all too frequently at the moment.

Peter Grant: According to documents that the company itself has filed with Companies House, one of the directors describes his own occupation as “senior civil servant”. Now, it may be that that is his former rather than his present occupation, but a simple glance at his career indicates that he has held a number of senior and presumably sensitive posts within both Her Majesty’s Government and NATO. Will the Minister tell us whether the Government were aware, until now, that this individual held that directorship? Were the Government involved in any way in nominating or recommending him for that position? And what approval of authorisation, if any, did the individual require before he became a director of what is, as the Minister has said, is an independent company limited by guarantee?

John Bercow: It was very cheeky of the hon. Gentleman to ask three questions, but I am sure the Minister will respond.

Alan Duncan: I believe that I would be right in saying that perhaps the reason for this is that NATO is also a funder of this activity. Therefore, I imagine that the name to which the hon. Gentleman refers has a connection with NATO. However, should this be inaccurate, I will of course write to him straightaway.

Layla Moran: In the end, this is about trust. In a recent parliamentary question to do with public money to fund social media ads to promote the Brexit deal, I asked the Government whether they would place the contents of these ads in the Library for us all to see. Unfortunately, this request was declined. Does the Minister agree that, to ensure public trust and transparency, the content and audiences of any ads paid for by public money should be published centrally as a matter of course?

Alan Duncan: The Foreign Office funding for the Integrity Initiative does not really pay for advertisements, so that is not really relevant to today’s urgent question. May I just refer to the earlier question regarding when we knew about the hack? We first knew about it on 23 November.

Chris Williamson: The Minister is burying his head in the sand. The fact is that this organisation has received more than £2 million of public money in just over 18 months, and it is a matter of fact that it has been engaging in a smear campaign against the Leader of the Opposition and the Labour party. It has also taken credit for derailing the appointment of Pedro Banos as the director of Homeland Security in Spain. This is a democratic outrage, and will the Minister therefore agree to an independent inquiry into the activities of this organisation?

Alan Duncan: I have said this on many occasions this morning: what the hon. Gentleman says about domestic activity—smearing the Leader of the Opposition —is utterly untrue.

Hugh Gaffney: Will the Minister now make it clear when he knew, how long the institute was hacked and what he has done about it?

Alan Duncan: I have sort of answered all those questions already this morning. I first knew about this when there was a report in the Sunday papers. I answered a question sprung on me on the “Today” programme at 7 o’clock yesterday, after which I sought all the facts, which have equipped me truthfully to answer this urgent question today.

Martin Whitfield: Does it not concern the Minister that the internal checks within the FCO have led it to sending cheques for £2 million to a derelict mill in Scotland as an address for this charity?

Alan Duncan: Well, that is not the cleverest of questions. The charity was incorporated in Scotland. Most of its activities are in the UK and all payments are channelled properly to where they belong.

Paul Sweeney: Will the Minister tell us a bit more about the Foreign Office’s counter-disinformation and media development team—what its objectives, resourcing and budget are and whether it has operational interface with the integrity initiative?

Alan Duncan: This question this morning is primarily about the integrity initiative. We carry out a lot of activity. Indeed, it is linked with our cyber-facilities in the UK Government, so, across Whitehall, there is all sorts of counter-disinformation activities. This is managed by our strategic fund—the conflict, stability and security fund—so increasingly across Whitehall, we are having to be alert and equipped to counter cyber-attacks and disinformation.

Ian Austin: The Government should be doing much more to counter Russian disinformation in Britain and in the west. In particular, may I ask the Minister to comment on the activities   of RT, which cannot be regarded as a serious news organisation? It is a wholly owned Kremlin propaganda channel, which has engaged in dishonest campaigns to undermine our democracy. Does he agree that it is a channel that mainstream politicians should not have anything to do with, and will he contact his counterparts at DCMS and ask them to encourage Ofcom to review the channel’s licence?

Alan Duncan: It is a rare moment of early festive good cheer that I can find myself wholly in agreement with the hon. Gentleman, which is not something that always happens across the Floor of the House. He is absolutely right about the extent to which Russia Today is an obvious mouthpiece for the Kremlin. It distorts information; it spreads disinformation; and it has quite a few useful idiots who it puts in front of the camera, and we should identify those so-called useful idiots and make sure that none of them is ever in our midst.

Martin Docherty: I agree with the shadow Foreign Secretary that we should scrutinise all instances of public bodies in receipt of public funds, yet the fact remains that the integrity initiative has criticised all political parties, including my own, when they have fallen foul—inadvertently or not— of the Russian disinformation narrative trap. I am a wee bit concerned that we fall into a trap where we are exposing the plethora of, some would say, Putin-Verstehers in grey suits in all political parties. I understand that the origin of much of the information discussed today emerged as a result of a hack perpetrated by actors of a dubious origin. Will the Minister enlighten the House further on the circumstances of that hack, and will he bring a report back to the Floor of the House?

Alan Duncan: Obviously, when I referred to my “Today” programme interview, it was on Monday, rather than yesterday. Let me just say to the hon. Gentleman that we are having an investigation into the hacking. It is continuing. We cannot attribute it with certainty to an absolutely specific source, but it does fit in with the wider pattern that I mentioned earlier, and therefore, of course, we have our well-founded suspicions.

POINTS OF ORDER

Julian Knight: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. The wait is over. A few days ago, a senior Labour Member of Parliament addressed a public meeting in my constituency relating to the relocation of a post office—a very sensitive public matter. I will not name the MP in question, but I would like your guidance please, Sir, on the correct procedure for Members in terms of when they should or should not show the courtesy of letting a sitting Member of Parliament know.

John Bercow: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his point of order. The answer is straightforward: it is a long-standing convention in this House that a Member visiting the constituency of another Member in a political or public capacity should notify the Member whose constituency is to be visited. If the visit is of a purely private character, for example, going to lunch or dinner at somebody’s house in that Member’s constituency, the obligation does not apply. I am bound to say to him, and I am sorry that he is obviously highly dissatisfied about this, that this is a recurrent complaint from Members on both sides of the House and I hope that, in the interests of the House as a whole, Members on both sides would honour the convention. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr Skinner) says from a sedentary position, “Who was it?”. Well, the hon. Member for Solihull (Julian Knight) has not named the Member. I think that he is focused on the principle rather than the personality. It seems to me that the principle applies regardless of who the personality is. However, if the hon. Member for Bolsover is particularly keen to know the identity of the person concerned, he can always have a cup of tea with the hon. Gentleman, although he may think that that is a step too far.

Dennis Skinner: A big step too far.

John Bercow: Why is that response not a great surprise to me?

Andrew Gwynne: rose—

John Bercow: I am saving up the Front Bench. It would be a pity to squander the hon. Gentleman at too early a stage of our proceedings.

Gareth Thomas: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. You may remember that an independent report into the allegations of sexual harassment, abuse of power and bullying at UNAids, which Britain currently chairs, has recently been published calling for the resignation of the current executive director. Can you think of any way in which it would be possible to elicit a statement from the Secretary of State for International Development, whose responsibility this is, on what she and the Government are doing to effect the resignation of the said executive director?

John Bercow: The hon. Gentleman could seek an Adjournment debate on the matter. There are other routes open to him and I think that he knows that. I  cannot offer any promise to him but, if he were able to demonstrate that it was a matter of urgency, it could be aired on the Floor of the House. Sometimes, when I am asked by a disappointed or, dare I say it, a mildly frustrated Member who has not been able to air the matter of concern to him or her, my advice tends to be: persist, persist, persist. Just because a Member is unsuccessful the first time round, it does not automatically follow that the Member will continue to fail.

Stephen Doughty: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. I have raised this matter with you and the Clerks, and I understand that measures are being taken to address this issue, but I want to raise with you the concern that there are hundreds of young people here today campaigning for a people’s vote from the For Our Future’s Sake organisation and Our Future Our Choice. They have been in the House to meet MPs over the past few weeks and have had very constructive discussions. They are not protesters. They are not here to cause disruption; they are here to speak to their elected representatives. Can you ensure that they are being allowed in to meet MPs and to use the Committee Rooms that they have booked with Members and that this does not happen in the future? It sends out a very bad message if, for whatever untoward reasons, young people coming to express their democratic rights are prevented from accessing Central Lobby and speaking to their Members.

John Bercow: I am extremely grateful to the hon. Gentleman for raising that point of order and for his characteristic courtesy in giving me advance notice of his intention to do so. My reply is a nuanced one that I hope is fair in the circumstances, and those circumstances include the fact that I have been in the Chair and not able to view the circumstances directly, so I am reluctant to rush to judgment.
What I would say to the hon. Gentleman is as follows. If constituents have meetings with their Members, they should of course be given ready access to those Members and should also be permitted to get to a Committee Room with maximum expedition. Security and logistical concerns may mean that larger groups are filtered through Central Lobby in batches so that they can obtain the relevant green card. However, I will investigate the circumstances of what happened this morning more fully and write to him when I have full information.
I hope that the hon. Gentleman, whose point of order is very reasonable, will understand if I say two things. First, I share his insistence on ready access and his passion for the idea of public engagement—in particular, the idea that young people who want to get into this place and communicate with Members, and register their views, should have the opportunity to do so. It is not for nothing that I have chaired the UK Youth Parliament for the past 10 years here, and not for nothing that I have gone to the UK Youth Parliament’s annual conference every year for the past 10 years. That is not just because I enjoy talking to them, though I readily admit that I do, but also because I enjoy hearing from them. That, I think, is important.
The second point I would make, which I hope the hon. Gentleman will accept in the spirit in which it  is intended, is that I know that our staff are utterly  dedicated and conscientious, and I would not want to criticise those staff unless there were a very compelling reason to do so.
I take on board what the hon. Gentleman has said, and I will look into it and get back to him.

Andrew Gwynne: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. It is customary for the local government finance settlement to be announced to Parliament in early December. Indeed, Ministers had pencilled it in for 6 December. Last week, in a written statement, the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government deferred the statement until after the “protected period”, by which I assume he meant the expected meaningful vote on the withdrawal agreement, which of course should have been last night.
Have you, Sir, had any indication from the Government as to when they expect to bring the statement before the House, as given the late change to this week’s business, it could have been made by now? I am not asking you to speculate on rumour and uncertainty, with the Government perhaps wanting to collapse business next week. However, this is crucially important, notwithstanding the psychodrama unfolding on the Government Benches, because our councils are now entering the council tax-setting cycle and need to have certainty about their budgets and their council tax requirements, including the police precept, ahead of the bills being sent out in March.

John Bercow: I say to the hon. Gentleman, in all candour and conviviality, that no one could accuse him of excluding from his attempted point of order any point that might to any degree, in any way, at any time be judged to be material. That is my polite way of saying that his point of order is supremely comprehensive.
My answer to the hon. Gentleman is twofold. First, the business question is the obvious opportunity for this matter to be aired and, as he is sitting next to the shadow Leader of the House, he can attempt to add it to the list of important matters that she will feel inclined to raise at the business question tomorrow.
Secondly, although I obviously have absolutely no way of knowing whether the contents of the prospective statement are likely to be finalised any time soon, if they are finalised soon, there is no shortage of time for this matter to be aired either tomorrow or, indeed, next week. The hon. Gentleman is dextrous in his use of parliamentary mechanisms to secure the attention of the House. We will leave it there for now.
If there are no further points of order—if the appetite has been satisfied—we come now to the ten-minute rule motion for which the hon. Member for Braintree (James Cleverly) has been so patiently waiting.

INTERNATIONAL TRADE AND DEVELOPMENT AGENCY

Motion for leave to bring in a Bill (Standing Order No. 23)

James Cleverly: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to establish an International Trade and Development Agency to coordinate the development and delivery of policy between the Department for International Trade and the Department for International Development; and for connected purposes.
I am sure that all Members of this House will be familiar with the old adage,“Give a man a fish, feed him for a day. Teach a man to fish and feed him for life.” But I feel that another line should be added to that: “Buy that man’s surplus fish and watch him lift himself out of poverty.”
In March 2016, I went to Sierra Leone, the country of my mother’s birth, to see the impact that UK aid has had. Sierra Leone is a country that was ravaged by civil war—a civil war that was ultimately brought to a close because of the involvement of British armed forces.More recently, Sierra Leone was hit by Ebola, a disease that was able to take hold because the social and medical infrastructure of the country was smashed during the civil war. British aid and British medical professionals were instrumental in winning the fight against Ebola. When mudslides in Sierra Leone’s capital of Freetown took the lives of hundreds, UK aid stepped up and supported the country once again.
However, when I spoke to the people of Sierra Leone—a country that was hit by war, disease and natural disaster—on my visit, I found that the thing they craved most from their relationship with the UK was not further aid, thankful though they were for the aid they had received, but increased trade. They wanted to be able to sell to us and to be able to buy our products and services in return.
The Department for International Development has the remit to end extreme poverty and tackle the root causes of disease, mass migration, insecurity and conflict. I know that DIFD does look at helping countries on the journey out of poverty by supporting the development of their commercial potential and establishing the foundations for future trading relationships, but it will always feel pressure to focus on countries with the most poverty and at the times of greatest hardship. Our constituents very rarely complain when they see UK aid supporting those in the most extreme hardship.We are, at heart, a nation of people with an internationalist outlook and a desire to support people when they are at their lowest ebb. There is, however, less vocal support for our development spending when it is not targeted at the points of most extreme poverty and hardship. Yet it is this area that gives countries the best chance of becoming permanently economically self-sufficient.
Since the EU referendum vote, the people of the United Kingdom have embraced a new-found interest in international trade policy. We have seen a significant appetite to build on our current relationships and become, once again, a global trading nation.It is right that in the immediate post-Brexit world, the International Trade Department prioritises increasing trade flows between the UK and other larger developed economies. This is  the most efficient use of limited Government resources: time, money, and people.But there is danger that countries who are neither at the poorest nor the richest end of the spectrum fall between the two.We see very little public disagreement when our aid spending is directed at countries like Sierra Leone, which has gone through such difficulties, but when it is directed at countries like Nigeria and Pakistan, we too often see negative headlines and public disquiet.Yet it is countries like these—not at the lowest ebb but certainly not yet fully economically stable—that could be permanently helped out of poverty through trade with the United Kingdom.
If the UK is going to take up its rightful position as a truly global leader in this field, we need to ensure that we have a repository for the kind of expertise necessary to look into things like trade preferences for least developed countries and how we make sure that countries growing out of LDC status are not presented with a cliff-edge change to their trade status.
Addressing those complexities is a tall order for our civil servants, spread across two Departments, and takes deep, specialist expertise. Civil servants rotate through different jobs across Departments every few years, so we often have to rely on outside expertise, and unfortunately there is little institutional memory in this area. Equally, asking civil servants to assess the impact of policies and programmes they have designed is like asking someone to mark their own homework. Parliament must also  be able to access independent evidence and analysis, be well informed about the shape of our new trade arrangements with developing countries as we leave  the EU, have visibility of the impacts of those trade arrangements and, if they are performing less well than expected, call for improvements.
A similar basket of requirements brought about  the creation of the United States International Trade Commission some 100 years ago. That is why we should have a similar but enhanced organisation here in the UK at this pivotal moment in our history. The agency would be a statutory body, reporting to Ministers and Parliament, probably with a staff of around 50 full-time professionals. The agency would have five main functions.
First, it would carry out analysis and consultations with businesses in the UK and in developing countries to build up a robust evidence base, monitoring our trade with developing countries and assessing the impacts on growth, employment and development, reporting to Ministers and Parliament annually.
Secondly, it would specifically review the scope and design of our trade preference systems for developing countries and advise Ministers at least every two years on how these were performing and where improvements were needed, including which countries should be included, excluded or graduated.
Thirdly, it would recommend how we can best craft our future trade agreements with developing countries in goods, services and technology to maximise the benefits for promoting shared prosperity at home and abroad and overcome red-tape barriers for developing countries exporting to the UK.
Fourthly, it would undertake sustainability impact assessments of all future UK trade agreements with developing countries, following the model that has been used extensively by the EU but for which we currently have no system here in the UK.
Finally, the agency would track our Aid for Trade programmes, assessing performance against Government targets and recommending best practices for joined-up and effective UK aid spending in this area.
We have the opportunity to create an organisation of truly global standing that could be a model for other OECD countries and an international centre of excellence. We have the chance to make a statement to countries around the world, rich and poor, that we do not just want to make poverty bearable; we want to make poverty history.

Stephen Doughty: I rise to speak in opposition to the Bill. Let me start by making it clear that trade, development and ending poverty very much go together. That has always been at the heart of the Department for International Development’s agenda, having been put at its heart when the Department was established by the last Labour Government in 1997. I sat in that Department as an adviser and worked with many organisations, particularly on trade and development issues, for many years. I worked alongside my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow West (Gareth Thomas), who served as a joint Trade and DFID Minister, on how we properly put those issues together.
I am a Labour and a Co-operative MP. Fair trade and trade justice are at the heart of what Co-operative MPs stand for. Many of us are members of the fair trade group in Parliament, and many of us have argued for support for trade with developing countries—trade that will lift people out of poverty.
The hon. Member for Braintree (James Cleverly) mentioned the Make Poverty History campaign, in which I was closely involved in 2005. One of its three pillars was trade justice, alongside more and better aid and dropping the debt. All those things go together. While I agree with some of the principles put forward by the hon. Gentleman, his speech belied a wider  agenda. This is essentially part of an agenda about Brexit and an attempt by some Government Members to undermine and take apart the Department for International Development by other means than a  straight-out abolition. That has been a hallmark of some Conservative policy over the last few years, which is deeply disappointing. While we have, on the face of it, a commitment to the Department and to the 0.7% spending target, a series of measures have undermined the Department and its core objectives.
I am not sure that some of the things the hon. Gentleman suggested would be compatible with the International Development Acts. Those Acts were clear that poverty eradication had to be the foremost agenda of UK aid and development policy. He said that the Department feels “pressure” to focus on countries with the most poverty. I think that it should. That should be the primary purpose of our aid and development spending—those most in poverty.

James Cleverly: Not exclusively.

Stephen Doughty: The hon. Gentleman says that I was not listening. I was listening carefully. He is blurring objectives. The focus should be on poverty and on our  common interest. There is a way of devising international development policy and trade policy that is in the common interest of both parties—of our country and of developing countries—and ensures that we move together in generating and spreading wealth and prosperity for all people in the world, including in those countries, rather than having a self-interested trade policy.
Past Conservative Governments do not have a positive record on this. I would hate to see a day when we slip back to things like the Pergau Dam scandal, or where things are tied simply to self-interested trade policies and we attempt to get self-advantage rather than to focus on common interests between ourselves and some of the poorest countries in the world.
There is a good way to go about this. It is the policy that we have practised in Government through the Department for International Development. It is the policy that has been pursued in much of our work through multilateral agencies, which do much to promote trade and development and provide trade capacity.
The hon. Gentleman spoke about the EU. One of the greatest tragedies of Brexit is that we are potentially coming out of key European development agencies, the European development fund and the arrangements that exist for close co-operation with many countries, including many in the Commonwealth and African, Caribbean and Pacific countries. It has been far from perfect. I have campaigned when I think the EU has got things wrong in its relationships. In fact, my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow West will remember he and I having lively discussions about policy in a previous life and where that went.
The reality is that, on the whole, the EU has had development and poverty eradication at the heart of its policies and its relationships with the ACP countries. We already have trade agreements with many of those countries. We already have supportive policies in aid and development. One of the tragedies of Brexit is that we will potentially just chuck all that in the bin.
The European development fund, the European Commission’s humanitarian office—ECHO—and many other programmes are some of the Department for International Development’s highest rated multilateral programmes. I previously served on the International Development Committee, and we saw evidence of that when looking at the funding of multilateral agencies.
It seems absurd to suggest that we come out of all those programmes and create something else that is hugely bureaucratic and would, I fear—whatever the intentions of the hon. Member for Braintree—be used by other Government Members and those with agendas to simply undermine the work of the Department for International Development.
There is also the crucial issue of the extra bureaucracy and cost of setting up such an agency. Why do we need it? We already have a Department. We already have UK aid. We already have the multilateral agencies that have these relationships. We already have many experts working in trade facilitation and trade and international development. Why would we create another costly agency and reorganise and shunt civil servants back and forth yet again when we already have people doing excellent   work in that area, in not only this country but many of the others with which we co-operate? I do not need to mention all the names, but there are many other agencies that we have worked with for many years, such as Crown Agents.
Of course, we also have the Commonwealth Development Corporation. Mr Speaker, you will know, because I have spoken on this at great length before, that I have been a critical friend of the CDC. The CDC has got things wrong in the past. The huge extra funding given to it was premature and too much to absorb quickly, but I know that the CDC is working to look at all those issues. It is important that we stick with what we have. It works perfectly well. It has poverty eradication at the heart of it. We have excellent people working on it. We do not need to create something else.
As I said, this Bill unfortunately sits alongside a series of other agendas. We have seen attempts by this Government to rebadge aid and development spending and redraw the definitions used at an international and UK level—“Let’s say we’re keeping the 0.7% target, but we’ll undermine it in every way we can by sticking everything else under it and claiming that it’s development spending.” We have seen the repeated diversion of our aid funding to private contractors, many of whom have actually been seriously criticised for some of the work they have been doing. As I have said, we have had the huge increases to the CDC. I am not opposed to an increase to the CDC, but I have had some serious concerns about its level.
We have also seen this with the Government’s two cross-Government funds—the conflict, stability and security fund and the prosperity fund. Many parts of that work are excellent—the funds are doing excellent work—and we cannot have a purist development policy in which we do not work with other agencies. However, I certainly have some serious questions about the way in which other Departments have been spending money through the prosperity fund without reference to our development objectives and without reference to poverty eradication as the first point. Quite frankly, there has been very lax scrutiny from other Departments—including, I am sorry to say, the Foreign Office—about where that is going and how it is being spent.
I do not think that the fate of the world’s poorest people and the relationships of common interest that we should be building together, as I have said, should somehow be used instrumentally in the Brexit process. They should not be used as some sort of Brexit sweeteners for us to try and grab magical trade deals that, frankly, we already have, but are also not going to replace our excellent trading relations with our EU neighbours or, indeed, the trading relations that exist between us as an integral part of the European Union and many of the world’s developing countries.
We have to have a relationship of mutual respect: not simply one of self-interest, but one of common interest. We will truly make poverty history by supporting and working alongside developing countries, not by acting in an instrumental way in which we are putting our own interests before those of others. I therefore oppose the Bill, and I hope the House will divide on this.
Question put (Standing Order No. 23).
The House divided:
Ayes 42, Noes 243.

Question accordingly negatived.

James Cleverly: Recount!

John Bercow: I am not quite sure which football team the hon. Gentleman supports—

James Cleverly: Arsenal.

John Bercow: Well, in that case the hon. Gentleman is always a model of good behaviour—always. Any Arsenal fan is to be commended. We appreciate the amiable demeanour of the hon. Gentleman in the circumstances.

Rupa Huq: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. I wonder whether I might seek your advice on this matter. The Home Office has just laid a written statement on an update of the Government’s anti-corruption strategy 2017 to 2022, which originated from David Cameron back in 2016. I have been unable to get a hard copy of it, but having this as a written, not an oral, statement denies Members of the House the opportunity to hold the Government to account on the commitments in the strategy. We are at least due by now a consultation on the new economic crime of failure to prevent money laundering—I asked the Prime Minister about that in her statement on the G20 the other day. I know that these are good days to bury bad news and that this Government like to duck big challenges, but have you received any advance notice   or indication of when there will be an oral statement from the Minister with responsibility for crime prevention on the anti-corruption strategy, which would give us in this House an opportunity to debate its progress?

John Bercow: The short answer to the hon. Lady is that no, I have received no indication of an imminent statement on that matter by any Government Minister. This is not, strictly speaking, a point of order upon which I can rule, although I must say that in raising an attempted point of order that does not constitute a point of order, she is not in a notably isolated minority—that is to say, the vast majority of attempted points of order are, of course, nothing of the kind. They are points of frustration, points of point-scoring, points of view and points of advertisement, rather than points of order. What I would say is that it is of course for the Government to decide whether, and if so when, to make a statement on the matter and to judge what form that statement should take. Principally—I say this as much for the benefit of people attending to our proceedings who are not Members of the House as for those who are—they have to make a judgment about whether to make a written or an oral statement. That partly depends on the timetable and how much space there is in the day, and it partly depends on their judgment about the level of importance to be attached to the matter.
The hon. Lady has made clear her view that an oral statement would have been appropriate in this case, and no doubt that view will have been heard clearly on the Treasury Bench. Meanwhile, although she is disappointed not to have witnessed a statement that she thinks is appropriate, she has at least succeeded in highlighting the fact of the imminent publication—well, we think the imminent publication, but certainly the important publication—of the document concerned.
If there are no further points of order, the Clerk will now proceed to read the orders of the day.

COURTS AND TRIBUNALS (JUDICIARY AND FUNCTIONS OF STAFF) BILL [LORDS]

Consideration of the Bill, as amended in the Public Bill Committee

John Bercow: I should inform the House that I have selected the amendments on the amendment paper—although they are starred as tabled after the usual deadline—because of the late notice of today’s business. I should also inform the House that I have today issued a provisional certificate that clause 2 of the Bill, as amended in Public Bill Committee, relates exclusively to England and Wales and is within devolved legislative competence. At the end of the Report stage on a Bill, I am required to consider the Bill as amended on Report for certification. At that point, I will issue my final certificate.

Clause 3

Authorised court and tribunal staff: legal advice and judicial functions

Yasmin Qureshi: I beg to move amendment 1, in page3,line28, leave out subsection 3 and insert—
“(3) A statutory instrument containing regulations under this section may not be made unless a draft of the instrument has been laid before Parliament and approved by a resolution of each House.”
This amendment would require that where statutory instruments delegating judicial functions to authorised persons are brought they would be subject to the affirmative procedure.

John Bercow: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 2, in the schedule, page6,line36, at end insert—
“(aa) is a qualified solicitor, barrister or chartered legal executive with more than three years’ experience post-qualification, and”.
This amendment would stipulate that the minimum legal qualifications for authorised persons should be three years’ experience post-qualification.
Amendment 3,in the schedule, page8,line31, at end insert—
“( ) is a qualified solicitor, barrister or chartered legal executive with more than three years’ experience post-qualification, and”.
See explanatory statement to amendment 2.
Amendment 4,in the schedule, page11,line12, at end insert
“and if they are a qualified solicitor, barrister or chartered legal executive with more than three years’ experience post-qualification”.
See explanatory statement to amendment 2.
Amendment 5,in the schedule, page11,line32, leave out subsection 67C and insert—
“67C Right to judicial reconsideration of decision made by an authorised person
A party to any decision made by an authorised person in the execution of the person’s duty as an authorised person exercising a relevant judicial function, by virtue of section 67B(1), may apply in writing, within 14 days of the service of the order, to have the decision reconsidered by a judge of the relevant court within 14 days from the date of application.”
This amendment would grant people subject to a decision made under delegated powers a statutory right to judicial reconsideration.

Yasmin Qureshi: I rise to speak in support of amendment 1 and the other amendments. We are being encouraged to wave through this wafer-thin Bill, which is both narrowly constrained and obscurely drafted. This is a Bill that sneaks through changes that will change unconstitutional double delegation—that is, of legislative power to unaccountable judges sitting on procedure rule committees and of judicial powers to non-independent courts and tribunal staff.
Let us begin with clause 3, which delegates judicial functions to authorised staff. This provision must be understood in the context of a wider court reform agenda and the austerity measures that seek to make significant cuts. These efficiencies, generated through the proposed reforms, arise not only from the reduction in the size of the courts estate, but from savings on judicial salaries. Ultimately, the Bill seeks more justice on the cheap.
The Bill will ensure that judicial powers are delegated to non-independent courts and tribunal staff. The procedure rule committee is primarily made up of senior judges, who would ensure relatively little external public scrutiny of this delegation of judicial functions to non-judicial employees of Her Majesty’s Courts and Tribunals Service. That is a really important point.
The Bill provides that regulations under clause 3 must be made under the negative resolution procedure. In effect, this will allow new rules of court stipulating which judicial functions can be delegated and to whom, and the requisite qualifications or experience that an authorised person must have to take on these judicial functions, but, as the Bill stands, such a delegation will come into force without any real parliamentary scrutiny. In essence, by providing that the regulations in the Bill are to be made under the negative resolution procedure, the Government are avoiding proper scrutiny by a democratically mandated legislature here in this place.
Our amendment, which is supported by the Bar Council, would ensure more constitutionally appropriate accountability and scrutiny, through the affirmative resolution procedure, of these sweeping regulations. These regulations concern powers to make rules stipulating which judicial functions can be delegated and to whom, and the qualifications and experience required before a member of the administration can be given these judicial functions. Without careful scrutiny and additional safeguards, the Government’s drip-feed approach to court reform will erode some of our most fundamental institutions and our understanding of the rule of law.

John Howell: Will the hon. Lady comment on whether the qualification provision will raise the bar significantly above that in current regulations for such people and whether that will put at a disadvantage people already carrying out those functions?

Yasmin Qureshi: We are talking about two different things. The authorised persons are to have delegated to them many judicial functions, and it is only appropriate that they have some experience. In those circumstances, three years’ post-qualification experience is not a big ask, obligation or burden. We are asking for the minimum, and we are being very reasonable and practical about it. We are only surprised that the Government are not taking our concerns on board and changing the rules.

Jim Cunningham: One reason we need proper scrutiny is the tendency towards rationalisation of the courts, which eventually means long waiting times—that cannot be justice for anyone waiting for a trial. There have been endless cases of this now, and it is getting worse, not better. Does my hon. Friend agree that that is not fair on the victim or the perpetrator?

Yasmin Qureshi: My hon. Friend is spot on. That is one of our concerns about the Government’s proposals.
We need a process that requires transparent and public scrutiny in this House of the scope of future delegated powers. The safeguards the Opposition seek on the powers created by the Bill are not unreasonable and would not interfere with the notion of reasonable delegation of non-contentious administrative functions; they simply press for further oversight and accountability.
Our amendments providing that the authorised persons must be solicitors, barristers or chartered legal executives with more than three years’ post-qualification experience have been recommended and drafted by the Law Society and are supported by the Bar Council. In other words, all the practitioners in the country are supporting and asking for these changes, and I ask the Government, even at this late stage, to consider adopting them. In the circumstance, we believe them to be the minimal ask of the Government. It is a lower qualification threshold than what is currently required of pupil supervisors, or indeed of solicitors, to supervise an office.
It is worth remembering that authorised staff are not subject to the training, experience, ethos and oaths of professional judges, and could be performing judicial functions while also—this is really important—being employed directly by HMCTS. This raises genuine questions of independence.

Kevin Hollinrake: We are talking about taxpayers’ money. Does the hon. Lady not accept that where such tasks are routine—say, straightforward case preparation—the people performing them should not need a legal qualification?

Yasmin Qureshi: These people will be performing judicial tasks and functions and so will need to be appropriately qualified, which is why we have tabled the amendments.

James Cartlidge: It is my understanding that these are mainly interlocutory functions, not actual judgments or significant judicial functions.

Yasmin Qureshi: No, as we understand it, although it is envisaged that some of these tasks will be procedural, others will be very important to people whose rights are affected. We might think, for example, that requests for adjournments are straightforward, but they are not. As practitioners and former practitioners will know, they can be complicated, because when a judge decides whether to grant one, they take into consideration a host of things, so it is important that the person be appropriately qualified.
We accept that the procedure rule committee will be able to iron out some of the questions about what are judicial and what are administrative functions, but the main thing is that these people will be carrying out  judicial functions and deciding some difficult issues, and it is only appropriate that they be qualified and appropriately experienced.

Andrew Slaughter: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. We discussed this in Committee. Interlocutory case management often has a large bearing on what happens in a case; it can alter what happens in a case and it can alter cost decisions. In their own way, such decisions are as important as purely judicial decisions. The Government’s proposal might be a false economy, so I support what she is saying.

Yasmin Qureshi: I thank my hon. Friend, a former shadow Justice Minister, for his intervention, and I take his point.
We acknowledge that the relevant procedure rule committee will set out the procedural requirements for who can carry out the procedures, but we also know that these committees are predominantly made up of senior judges, so this will have implications for the independence of judicial decision making.
We also believe that such a shift will not match the expectations held by members of the public on the experience and independence of those making judicial decisions about their rights.

Bob Neill: The hon. Lady referred to the independence of the judges. Is not the whole virtue of this proposal that the rules governing who should be delegated what functions will be made by judges, and should not be made by politicians in any circumstance? Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd, the former Lord Chief Justice, observed:
“Experience has shown that detailed restrictions on procedure are a very real fetter on the administration of justice.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 20 June 2018; Vol. 791, c. 2039.]
He counselled against too much restriction of the kind that is being proposed.

Yasmin Qureshi: The procedure rule committee obviously has a place in our judicial system, and we accept that judges and others are involved in it, but everyone knows that there are times when, because of financial pressures, services are cut to the bare minimum. We believe that, to protect our judicial system, the functions concerned should be clearly set out, and those that will have an effect on someone should be decided by an authorised person with a legal qualification.

Alex Chalk: The hon. Lady is getting perilously close to suggesting that judges will do justice when they are inside a court, but will be incapable of ensuring that justice is done when they are outside a court, on the procedure rule committees. Will she make it crystal clear that judges will always, in all circumstances, want to do justice, and can be trusted to do so?

Yasmin Qureshi: We are not suggesting that judges will somehow not be independent. As I have said, I have the highest regard for our judiciary in court, although from time to time we might disagree with the decisions that judges reach. In the real world, however, there are often targets to be met and financial constraints to be considered. We are saying that when the procedure  rule committee is making rules, it should be guided  by Parliament.

Bob Neill: rose—

Yasmin Qureshi: I have taken a number of interventions, and I will make some progress now. Otherwise we will be going round in circles on the same point.
The Bill provides for judicial functions to be delegated to authorised staff across the criminal, civil and family courts and tribunals. However, it also states that while those staff will be independent of the Lord Chancellor when carrying out the delegated functions, they will remain court staff, and will not take the judicial oath of independence. It is surely important for those who will be making any type of judicial decision to take that oath. They cannot be described as independent when they are employed by the court in which they will serve.
There might, for example, be economic pressures. The court might want to get rid of cases very quickly, within a certain period. The promotion prospects of those who are employed directly by the courts will, of course, be affected, and, unlike judges, they will not be governed by the oath of independence, the Bar rules and the Law Society rules. People who are making judicial decisions should be appropriately qualified, with the proper ethos and the proper rules that apply to solicitors and barristers, and to which members of the legal profession, such as me, must have regard.
Our amendment 5 would ensure that a party to any decision made by an authorised person exercising a relevant judicial function, or the function of a tribunal,
“may apply in writing, within 14 days of the service of the order, to have the decision reconsidered by a judge of the relevant court within 14 days from the date of application.”
We will be quite happy if the Government want to increase the period to 21 days, or reduce it to fewer than 14, but we want people to have a right to judicial reconsideration of a decision made by an authorised person. We cannot understand why the Government do not want to accept the amendment.
The statutory right of reconsideration would allow any party to a decision made by an authorised person to have that decision reconsidered by a judge, as recommended by Lord Justice Briggs in his 2016 “Civil Courts Structure Review: Final Report”. The right is already provided for in, for example, tribunal procedure rules. Lord Justice Briggs said:
“The creation of an extensive right to have the decisions of Case Officers considered by a judge has from the outset been regarded as the natural safety valve for concerns about what was...described as the delegation of judicial functions to persons who are not judges”.
We are asking for a minimum safeguard. The right of reconsideration would have the benefit of freeing an authorised person from the obligation to produce detailed reasons for every decision, as would be the case if the right of appeal, for example, were created. It has the additional benefit of going further than a right of review by guaranteeing judicial oversight of a decision.
More importantly, that statutory right would ensure compliance with article 6 of the European convention on human rights, which refers to the right to a fair trial. Decisions that affect people’s rights must be made by an independent and impartial person, and that person cannot be a member of court staff or employed directly by a tribunal. We consider this to be a proportionate safeguard that would be relevant to the new powers created by the Bill, given the provision in article 6 that  the determination of a person’s civil rights and obligations, or any criminal charge against them, must be undertaken by an independent and impartial tribunal established by law.
The requirement for independence would apply not only to the tribunal, but to any judge or other officer authorised by law to exercise judicial power. As the Ministry of Justice acknowledges in its human rights memorandum on the Bill,
“In considering independence...guarantees against outside pressures are relevant—as is the question whether the body presents an appearance of independence”.
In the memorandum, the MOJ suggests that it is intended that
“case management decisions which it is proposed these authorised members of staff will be able to take will be uncontentious and not of sufficient importance to engage Article 6”.
However—I say this particularly to those who have practised in law and have attended court, and my hon. Friend the Member for Hammersmith (Andy Slaughter) made the point earlier—case management decisions can have a significant impact in shaping the ultimate outcome of a case. For example, a decision on the appropriate timescales within which a party should take a step in proceedings may be significant, as failures to comply with a timescale will lead to some or all of the party’s case being struck out.
Furthermore, the Ministry of Justice’s factsheet on the delegation of functions to non-judicial staff states:
“In future, we expect that authorised staff may be able to carry out a…range of…functions”
and responsibilities,
“including case management powers and some mediation roles.”
That suggests that what is envisaged is more than a delegation of purely procedural powers to authorised persons. In effect, a mediation role is almost like a judicial role, and people who have not been properly trained and are not properly qualified should not be mediating between the parties to the proceedings. Even in its own paper, the Ministry of Justice seems to expect those staff to play a much bigger role in decision making.
Labour Members strongly believe that Parliament must have a role in ensuring that the new system of delegation proposed in the Bill includes a backstop protection—the word “backstop” has been used a lot in the last few weeks—of the right to a fair trial. Our amendments have been endorsed by the Law Society, the Bar Council and the Equality and Human Rights Commission. They propose a statutory right to judicial reconsideration for any party to a judicial decision made by an authorised person or non-judge. This would afford stronger protection of the right to a fair trial, and would guarantee the independent and impartial determination required by article 6. Another of our amendments seeks to ensure that, in drawing up the rules on reconsideration, the procedure committee must consider which functions and decisions could clearly have a material impact on the substantive rights of the parties.
The safeguards we are calling for are not unreasonable; they are minimal if we understand that the provisions in this so-called “uncontroversial” Bill have the potential to profoundly impact on our justice system. But to truly understand the impact of this Bill, we have to look at it  in the context of the Government’s wider austerity agenda. The double delegation of powers that the Government are intent on introducing is a slippery slope that, without proper controls, puts rights at risk. We can resist this—and we do. Without further careful scrutiny and additional safeguards, this Bill has the potential to erode long-established legal rights.
The Government must take notice of the clear limitations of this Bill. They should listen to those who seek to improve this Bill and accept our amendments to ensure that we protect our judicial system.

Bob Neill: I hope I shall make a better stab at my speech than I did of being a Teller earlier.
I rise to oppose these amendments, tempted though I am by the way in which they were proposed by the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Bolton South East (Yasmin Qureshi), whom I respect as a fellow lawyer. However, I do have to say that she seeks to go further than is appropriate and seeks to put a needless restriction on the ability of the procedure committee in particular to come to the appropriate balance. I have very great respect for the views of both the Law Society and the Bar Council—I say that with reference to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests as a non-practising barrister and a consultant to a law firm—but ultimately the scheme envisaged by the Government is a right and balanced one, and reflects in particular the views of the senior judiciary, which I think is important because ultimately it is the judges who are best placed to decide the appropriate level of delegation. They are the people who work day to day with these staff; they see day to day the nature of the boxwork—as it is sometimes called—and the other things that come in.
For these reasons, when the matter was debated in the other place, both Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd, the recently retired Lord Chief Justice, to whom I have already referred, and Lord Neuberger of Abbotsbury, recently retired president of the Supreme Court, counselled against an undue restriction on the operation of the civil procedure rule committee, already a well established body of the kind the Opposition seek to bring in. I think they also broadly supported the overall thrust  of the Bill.
The hon. Lady referred to austerity. That is not the objective of this Bill; there has been a long-standing proposal to modernise the civil justice system. She referred to the work done by Lord Justice Briggs, for whom I have the greatest respect. The Bill is a logical follow-on from the Briggs report, and it is necessary if we are to achieve modernisation and make the courts more accessible for litigants. This is an entirely sensible Bill; that is why the judiciary has pushed for these sorts of proposals, and why Lord Thomas said that he “warmly” welcomed it. It will save some £6 million; he regards that as a realistic figure. That is important in the context of the available resources for the courts system. We all accept that the courts are under pressure, and this is a sensible way forward that does not impede the basic requirements of access to justice or fairness.
Lord Thomas said two further things that we should bear in mind. He spoke about the developments in civil procedures; the rule committee has been an important part of that over the last 15 to 20 years, so it is not as though the committee were unused to dealing with  these matters. The committees bring together representatives of the legal profession. As a former practitioner, I agree with his description of that committee as
“a highly representative body with many representatives of the legal profession. Certainly, the committee will always try to reach a view by consensus—when I was a member of it for more than six years there never was a division; we always managed to agree.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 20 June 2018; Vol. 791, c. 2039.]
Most experienced practitioners will be aware of that. I think we can say the same of the criminal procedure rule committee; these are very well established bodies, and judges do not forget that they are judges when they are there.
It is a little unworthy, I say with respect, to suggest that the judiciary—we have talked about the senior judiciary chairing these bodies—would acquiesce in an inappropriate level of delegation for a purely financial consideration. They would be going against their judicial oaths. I do not think for one second that the hon.  Lady really means to say that they would do that. The amendments would, however, put needless constraint on the committee’s work. That is why I quoted before and quote again Lord Thomas’s observation:
“Experience has shown that detailed restrictions on procedure are a very real fetter on the administration of justice”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 20 June 2018; Vol. 791, c. 2039.]
In the other place, he gave a number of examples that I need not give here showing why that could be counterproductive.
It is also worth considering the speech of Lord Neuberger. He pointed out the following:
“There are two protected factors: one is that nothing can be done without it being in the rules, and the second is that the Lord Chief Justice needs to give his or her authorisation to the person who makes the decision.” .”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 20 July 2018; Vol. 792, c. 887.]
Those are important safeguards.

James Cartlidge: My hon. Friend speaks with great expertise. What he is saying goes back to the point raised earlier about the possibility of the functions that are delegated having legal significance. Presumably if that was the case, they would not be delegated to start with.

Bob Neill: That is precisely right. It is inconceivable that any Lord Chief Justice would give his or her consent to a delegation that was inappropriate or would put the interests of justice at risk. I never sat as a deputy district judge—they used to be called deputy registrars in my day, so long ago was it—in civil matters, but I have many friends who do, and a great deal of what is called boxwork, with which at least some on the Treasury Bench will be familiar, was of a very administrative kind. We expect the district judges in a busy county court to deal with that, whereas it seems perfectly reasonable for many of these matters, which are often of a very interlocutory nature, to be dealt with by an experienced member of court staff who has been in the service for many years. We are not talking about the ultimate determination of the case in any of these matters. That is why Lord Neuberger referred to that safeguard or protection, and the protection that that would be laid before Parliament.
Lord Neuberger made another important observation on the attempt, as it seems to me, to fetter the discretion of the committee. He posed a rhetorical question, as perhaps senior judges and other lawyers tend to do:
“Whether it is right to provide in such clear terms, and such uncompromising general terms, for the circumstances and requirements for”
appeals—which is what he was talking about—seems to him to be questionable. He was making this point:
“Having chaired the Civil Procedure Rule Committee for three years, I can say, as has been quoted in relation to its criminal equivalent by my noble and learned friend Lord Thomas, that considerable care is given to ensure that all the requirements of justice are met. It is very rare, if ever, that I can remember a decision being arrived at which was not arrived at by consensus.”
These questions are considered, not only by the judiciary but by practitioners, including members of the solicitors’ profession and members of the Bar. Plaintiffs’ and defendants’ interests are represented on these committees, as are both ends of the profession—solicitors and barristers—and all levels of the judiciary, from the High Court bench through the circuit bench to the district bench. This is a broad-based body and, as Lord Neuberger said, these
“details should be worked out…by the rule committee”.—[Official Report, House of Lords, 10 July 2018; Vol. 792, c. 890 to 891.]
I think that that is a forceful argument for leaving the proposals as the Government intended.
This is an important matter, but I hope that the House will not be lured into setting an undue restriction that, with every respect to the intentions of the hon. Member for Bolton South East, could give the impression that Parliament did not trust the independence of the judiciary, because that would certainly not be correct, or that it sought needlessly to circumscribe the way in which judges operate their courts. It is fundamental that we as party politicians—that is effectively what virtually all of us are—should not interfere in the way in which judges organise their workload and the staffing of the courts. As well as being impractical and unhelpful, that could also set an undesirable precedent in which Parliament, as well as setting the statutory framework in which judges operate, sought to delve too closely into the control of the everyday operations of an independent judiciary and court system.

Louise Haigh: I rise briefly to speak in favour of the amendments tabled by my Front-Bench colleagues. I believe that safeguards need to be in place to ensure that people are properly qualified to make decisions and particularly that contentious decisions should be reviewed by a qualified judge. I want explicitly to address concerns about how this might transpire in the family courts. Several of my hon. Friends raised the concern in Committee that the family courts could be the most affected by potential delays and the perverse consequences of the measures in  the Bill.
This is particularly relevant given the recent exposure of the case of Sammy Woodhouse. I am sure that colleagues will be well aware of her case. I know that the Minister is, and I am grateful to her for meeting Sammy and me last week. Mr Speaker also welcomed Sammy to Prime Minister’s questions last week. Her bravery in  putting herself forward, in risking being held in contempt of the family court and in waiving her anonymity to speak about her experiences, so that we in this place can drive change, is inspiring. We owe it to her and to the many other survivors to ensure that we drive change and ensure that what happened to her and to too many other young women and girls never happens again.
Those young women and girls were failed by the state. They were failed by our legal system, by the police, by the Crown Prosecution Service, by local authorities and by government at every level, and now they are being failed yet again by our legal system. Our entirely permissive system, which allows anyone to make an application through the family courts, means that men who have been convicted of rape—in Sammy’s case, the father of her child, Arshid Hussain, is serving a 35-year prison sentence—can apply to the courts for access or visitation rights. Sammy’s case shocked the nation, but unfortunately it was not unique. Just yesterday, I spoke to another woman who had to respond and attend court after the man who was convicted of raping her and fathering her child had applied through the family courts from prison.
This could be prevented through a simple ban on any man convicted of fathering a child through rape applying to the family courts. I know that the Government are reluctant to bring this forward, out of concern for the convicted rapist’s article 8 right to a family life, but I am afraid that that simply is not good enough. I will always defend our human rights as enshrined in the Human Rights Act 1998 and the European convention on human rights—I say this on the day of the 70th anniversary of the universal declaration of human rights—but article 8 is a qualified right and not one that should override the rights of women and children and their safety. Surely, we should be starting from the presumption that if a child has been conceived through rape, the man should have no parental rights to that child and that we should allow such rights only in exceptional circumstances, not the other way round.
When I speak to victims of rape and survivors of child sexual exploitation in situations such as Sammy’s—women who have an almost uniformly terrible experience of the family courts—their feeling is one of betrayal and despair that every day is a battle in which they have to fight for their most basic rights. They are often forced to relive their traumatic experiences and justify themselves over and over, yet they are so often told about the rights of the men who have abused them and who can now click their fingers and drag their victims back through the courts to traumatise them all over again. Women such as Sammy, who have already given evidence, spoken out in criminal trials and been to hell and back, should not then live the rest of their lives trying to bring their children up in horrendously difficult circumstances with the threat of being dragged back through the courts once again to face the man who raped them. It may be the case that no judge would allow such access in any circumstances, but it is surely intolerable for women in this situation to have to face the man in court all over again, and I believe that we as a Parliament should make that crystal clear.
The family procedure rule committee met earlier this week to discuss the consequences of Sammy’s case and to consider amending practice direction 12C. I hope that the committee will be able to bring much greater  clarity, but this is likely to be in relation to local authorities’ duty to notify in the case of a care order. That will not solve the problem, and I worry that, combined with the measures introduced in the Bill, it could bring greater uncertainty to the process and leave victims with even greater uncertainty and fear that their abusers might be able to weaponise the courts against them. As I have said, I am grateful to the Minister for meeting Sammy and me last week, but we were both really disappointed that the Government were not willing to take more immediate action to address this thoroughly intolerable situation. I hope that the Minister will be able to update the House on what action they have now considered and on the implications of the Bill for this important issue.

Lucy Frazer: It is an honour to take this Bill through its final stages. I should like to start by addressing some of the key points raised today by the hon. Member for Bolton South East (Yasmin Qureshi). She suggested that we were sneaking the Bill through the House. However, it was introduced seven months ago. Not only that, but it forms part of the Prisons and Courts Bill, which was introduced in this House in 2017 and which fell at the general election. The provisions in this Bill have been well known for some time. They have been debated in this House, and they are not being sneaked anywhere at all. The thrust of the hon. Lady’s speech was that this is a Bill about cuts, but it is certainly not. The Bill is part of our £1 billion court reform programme.

Neil O'Brien: My hon. and learned Friend is making an important point. In 2010, this country faced its largest budget deficit since the second world war, and all that my constituents want is value for money from the Government. The measures that we are taking forward today may not be the most exciting or sexy things that we will do this House, but they are a key part of value-for-money government.

Lucy Frazer: My hon. Friend makes an important point that has a number of aspects. First, my Department had to make cuts in 2010 because of the poor financial situation that we inherited from the Labour party. Secondly, it is important that we deliver justice fairly to those who are part of the justice system, but as he says, we also have a duty to the taxpayer. Overlaying those two points is a third point. Notwithstanding the position we inherited and notwithstanding our duty to taxpayers, my Department is undertaking a significant reform programme that is investing in our justice system. A couple of weeks ago, the Ministry of Justice held a conference at which more than 20 countries from around the world were represented. They talked about their own reform and modernisation programmes, but ours is one of the most ambitious. We are at the forefront of innovation, and we are investing in our justice system to bring it up to date in the 21st century.

Bob Neill: Is this not also important in the context of the speech by Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd in the other place? He said that
“the operation of the criminal, civil, tribunals and family procedures rule committees has enabled us far more than any other state to keep our rules up to date.”
We need to continue to do that. That is why he stated:
“I urge the greatest caution in trying to put into primary legislation anything that restricts in this way the powers of the rule committees.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 16 October 2018; Vol. 793, c. 425.]

Lucy Frazer: That is an important point. Our justice system is renowned throughout the world, thanks to its flexibility, which is enabled by the rules committees along with the other measures that allow us to develop our jurisdiction.
The hon. Member for Bolton South East finished by suggesting that we should listen and take the amendments on board, but we have listened and made amendments. We made amendments in the other place to include safeguards and improve the Bill.

Kevin Hollinrake: The Minister makes a good point about our duty to the taxpayer. Irrespective of this nation’s financial situation, we always have a responsibility to spend the taxpayers’ money wisely. As she knows, Northallerton magistrates court in my constituency will close. She has put in place some mitigation measures to help people to continue to have access to justice, but will she ensure that those measures are in place before the closure of that court?

Lucy Frazer: My hon. Friend and, indeed, Mr Deputy Speaker have campaigned hard about the closure of their local courts, and the dispensing of local justice is important in Northallerton, as it is in Chorley. My hon. Friend makes an important point, because, following campaigning by my hon. Friend and his constituency neighbour, my hon. Friend the Member for Richmond (Yorks) (Rishi Sunak), we committed not to close the court on the basis that we would do so only when the technology was in place to ensure that we could continue to deliver justice. We need to move with the times, but we must also ensure that people get fair procedures and justice in the tribunals.

Bob Neill: My hon. and learned Friend is being most generous in giving way. Does she also recognise that modernising and simplifying procedures saves money not only for the taxpayer, but for litigants? Part of access to justice is about reducing needless costs for litigants.

Lucy Frazer: That is an important point, because when we talk about what we have saved, we often mean what has been saved at the Ministry of Justice, but the reality is that ensuring that justice is served for the people who use it is at the heart of our reforms. Many of our changes have received positive feedback. In a recent trial at the tax tribunal, people were able to access justice from remote locations and not have to go to a physical court. That was well received, because people did not have to disrupt their day by physically entering court. Of course, that will not be appropriate for everyone, but we must ensure that we use the advantages of technology in the future.

Simon Hoare: I am grateful to my hon. and learned Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice for giving way—[Laughter.] That bought us 32 seconds. I am interested in what she has said. Is she able to dilate—preferably at some  considerable length—on the benefits that might accrue from people not having to go to court in rural areas, such as North Dorset, where public transport is scarce and where not everybody has access to a motor car? The changes could be of huge benefit to large, sparsely populated rural areas such as mine.

Lucy Frazer: My hon. Friend makes an important point, and I also represent a rural area. Interestingly, some of the greatest and most interesting innovations at our conference were from Australia, where the geography is an issue, and we can learn a lot from its procedures. Over recent years, 300,000 people have started engaging with our online services, which have been well received.

Simon Hoare: Will the Minister give way on that point?

Lucy Frazer: I will take one intervention and then address the amendments.

Simon Hoare: I am grateful. Can we read across from what my hon. and learned Friend says that she is making strong representations to ministerial colleagues at the Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport, to BT and to other providers to ensure that hotspots, blackspots, notspots—call them what you will—in rural areas that are poorly served by a reliable, speedy, robust internet will be filled to allow all our citizens to access justice and make representations using technology? With the best will in the world, if the technology is not there—I know that my hon. and learned Friend knows this—people will not be able to use it.

Lucy Frazer: My hon. Friend makes a second important point, which is that we cannot roll out and continue to use technology unless the technology actually works. I regularly talk to Her Majesty’s Courts and Tribunals Service and others about the importance of ensuring that the systems that we already have in place work well, so that the technology does not fail us when we are trying to hold court hearings.

Neil O'Brien: Further to the important point made by my hon. Friend the Member for North Dorset (Simon Hoare) about virtual and online courts and creating hassle-free access to courts for all constituents, can the Minister give us figures for the extent to which the change has helped to unclog our courts? One of the benefits of the Bill for my constituents is not just hassle-free access for them, but the fact that our courts will not be clogged up by the traffic cases and small beer that lead my constituents to wonder why serious criminals take years to be processed. Will the Minister give us some stats about the growth of virtual and online courts and what this Bill will do to those stats?

Lucy Frazer: I mentioned earlier that 300,000 people have already started engaging with our services online. They can apply for probate or divorce online, and many people are doing that. We also have our new online civil moneys claim court, which enables people to apply online and defend online. In one case in the first week after its launch, we had a settlement without people  going to court at all. Technology will not only enable us to unclog our courts and get quicker hearing times, but give our constituents better access to justice because more people will be engaging with it. It will be cheaper for them to engage, and therefore more people will be able to access fairness and justice in the resolution of their claims.
I turn to the essence of the Bill and the Opposition amendments. Amendment 1 relates to clause 3(3), which provides for the use of the negative resolution procedure, which the hon. Member for Bolton South East suggested is not appropriate when dealing with the judicial functions of staff. However, the Government think that the amendment is inappropriate for several reasons. First, clause 3(3), which provides for the use of the negative resolution procedure, is not actually concerned with judicial functions. Clause 3(3) is in fact cross-referring to clause 3(2), which allows the Secretary of State to make
“consequential, transitional, transitory or saving”
provisions relating to authorised staff by way of regulations.
In reality, clause 3(3) allows us to amend references in secondary legislation to, for example, justices’ clerk—a post abolished by the Bill—to authorised officer. So far, we have identified over 200 references and over 60 pieces of secondary legislation that would need amendment, and there may be more. It is a standard clause for this type of provision. We know that that is the correct reading of the measure because the power to enable staff to carry out the judicial functions that the hon. Member for Bolton South East is concerned about is actually set out in the procedural rules made by the independent rules committees. This is clear from clause 3(1), which refers not to regulations but to procedure rules. The procedure by which the procedure rules are enacted is set out not in this Bill but in other legislation, namely the Courts Act 2003, the Civil Procedure Act 1997 and the Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act 2007.
Amendments 2 to 4 relate to the qualifications of those undertaking advice or judicial functions under the Bill. Amendments 2 and 3 require that any staff member who gives legal advice to lay justices or judges of the family court must be legally qualified and have more than three years’ experience post-qualification. Amendment 4 requires the same qualifications for any staff carrying out judicial functions.
The Government absolutely agree it is important that those who undertake functions in our courts are suitably qualified. As my hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Robert Neill) said, and as he has said on many occasions, our justice system is renowned throughout the world, and much of that is down to the experience and quality of our judiciary. Ensuring that those who work within our justice system have the right skills is fundamental to justice.

Neil O'Brien: Members on both sides of the House would agree that we have a world-renowned judiciary. In fact, Members are profoundly nervous when we see headlines in our papers calling judges, “Enemies of the People,” which we would all disavow. These are people who, day in and day out, do things in court that could cause them to be threatened. They are taking risks on behalf of the rest of us, and it is a high-quality system. With that in mind, and given the respect in which the judiciary are held by this House, does my hon. and  learned Friend agree it is important that we do not accidentally do them down in this debate? Does she agree it is not right for the shadow Attorney General to suggest, I think unintentionally, that temporary judges may be less impartial than permanent judges? All our judiciary are high quality.

Lucy Frazer: That is absolutely right. As a former barrister, I appeared regularly before experienced judges, all of whom were full of integrity, undertaking important roles.
The hon. Member for Bolton South East suggested that all judges need qualifications of some kind. Of course, we have magistrates across the country who are doing outstanding jobs in our justice system. As my hon. Friend the Member for Harborough (Neil O'Brien) mentions, temporary judges, just like full-time judges and judges who operate on a permanent basis, are recruited because of their expertise and skill. They are trained, and they carry out their roles as they should.

Kevin Hollinrake: My hon. and learned Friend mentioned the fine work done by magistrates. Is there any way we could relax the requirements in order to increase the number of cases that may be considered by magistrates? I understand that magistrates are the most cost-effective part of the justice system.

Lucy Frazer: Magistrates undertake a significant number of roles, and they have vital responsibilities. In fact, they deal with over 95% of all criminal cases, the majority of which are less serious criminal cases, but they are very important. I am pleased recently to have attended the Magistrates Association conference, where I met a number of magistrates who are doing vital work across the country.

James Cleverly: I declare an interest, as my wife is currently going through the process to become a magistrate. I am struck by how the role of magistrates is so little understood. There are a number of people in my professional and personal circles who might make good magistrates, but they are unaware of the process or of the importance of the role. What more could be done to highlight the significant role that magistrates play in the criminal justice system?

Lucy Frazer: I am pleased to hear that Mrs Cleverly is undertaking this important role. My hon. Friend is right that it is important, and employers do understand. The Lloyds banking group recently won an award for encouraging staff to take time off to undertake this important role, and we need to do more to encourage employers to encourage their staff to take part in this important function.

Simon Hoare: rose—

Lindsay Hoyle: A short intervention.

Simon Hoare: Everything I do is short, Mr Deputy Speaker.
We are all, thank God, living longer. At some point, might there be merit in reviewing the retirement age both for our judges and our magistrates? With people taking early retirement and so on, the receptacle of wisdom should not be lost to the courts, particularly taking the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Braintree (James Cleverly) on the difficulty of finding people to fill these posts.

Lindsay Hoyle: Order. We need to move on now. I was very generous before, but magistrates have absolutely nothing to do with the Bill, as the Minister well knows.

Lucy Frazer: I am happy to come on to the three reasons why amendments 2 to 4 cannot be accepted. First, the amendments are not necessary. The functions are already being carried out, and carried out well, by those with lesser qualifications than those sought by the hon. Member for Bolton South East. The qualification requirements for legal advisers in the magistrates court and family court are currently set out in regulations made by the Lord Chancellor, as they have been since 1979, and amendments 2 and 3 would raise the qualifications bar significantly higher than the current regulations and would rule out a large proportion of Her Majesty’s Courts and Tribunals Service staff from giving legal advice in future.

James Cartlidge: There are many people in the Chamber with huge legal expertise. All I can claim is spending my year off as a junior outdoor clerk, for which the only qualifications needed were a ponytail and a cockney accent, as far as I could see. From my short experience I discovered the huge number of staff who make up our courts and keep them ticking along. They might be administrative functions, but we should not be afraid of reforming our courts to give those people greater roles that help them to make more of their career.

Lucy Frazer: My hon. Friend makes an important point. Not only is it important to ensure that the qualifications match the role, but these reforms will ensure good career progression for competent and organised staff. Similarly, in relation to amendment 4, it is already the case that some staff can exercise judicial functions in almost every jurisdiction except the Crown court. The range of functions they can carry out varies enormously, as my hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton (Kevin Hollinrake) pointed out earlier, from legally qualified legal advisers in the county court setting aside default judgments to non-legally qualified caseworkers in the lower tribunal dealing with postponement requests and issuing strikeout warnings.
Accepting amendment 4 would rule out a large proportion of those staff, who are already exercising judicial functions and who may have been doing either or both for a number of years. Such a loss of expertise would be particularly damaging and would impact on the service that Her Majesty's Courts and Tribunals Service can provide. The hon. Member for Bolton South East suggested that introducing authorised staff was damaging to justice, but I did not hear any examples of inappropriate action by any of our current staff who do not currently have those qualifications and who are already carrying out these roles.

Kevin Foster: The Minister is outlining well the position under the current regulations. Does she agree, therefore, that specifying the needed qualifications in primary legislation would be unwelcome when we already have a perfectly effective system that does not require such qualifications, which could then in future be changed by further primary legislation?

Lucy Frazer: That is the heart of the Government’s position, and it takes me neatly on to my second point. The Bill, as drafted, already ensures appropriate procedures are in place to ensure that parties are protected. Those points were clearly put by my hon. Friends the Members for Torbay (Kevin Foster) and for Bromley and Chislehurst—the Chair of the Select Committee on Justice always puts things clearly and cogently. The Bill rightly allows the relevant procedure rule committees to set the requirements relating to the necessary qualifications or experience of these staff in the future, depending on the functions they permit staff to carry out.

Kevin Hollinrake: This is an important point. Will my hon. and learned Friend come on to address not only the human cost if these amendments are accepted, with the potential for people in these roles at the moment to lose those jobs, but the financial costs of making those people redundant and replacing them with qualified people?

Lucy Frazer: Yes, those are important points. A large number of people already carry out these important roles and do so very well, and we would like to retain them.
Both the judicial functions that may be carried out by staff and the accompanying qualification requirements will be set out—it is just that they will be set out in the procedure rules, which are made by way of secondary legislation and are therefore subject to parliamentary scrutiny.

Neil O'Brien: Progressive politicians on both sides of the House believe in labour market progression; they believe people should be able to act up, do more, learn more, take their career further and earn more. By putting in primary legislation artificial demarcations that stop skilled people doing things they are capable of doing, we would be doing people down; we would be putting a limit on their aspirations. That is why we must reject these amendments.

Lucy Frazer: That is an important point. Some people are already carrying out these functions and doing them well, and they will be able to see a future career progression for themselves. The legal and other qualifications they should have will be set out, but they will be set out by the committees, which are judicially led and independent of Government, and include representatives of the legal professions, and court and tribunal users. As my hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst said, the judges placed on those are leading the procedure rule committees and have significant expertise. It is they who are best placed to assess the appropriate level  of qualification or experience for authorised staff, in the light of the functions they choose to allow those staff to exercise.
My hon. Friend rightly said that the member of staff will not be able to give legal advice or exercise judicial functions until they have been authorised to do so by the Lord Chief Justice or their nominee, or by the Senior President of Tribunals or their delegate. Authorisations are therefore ultimately the responsibility of the judiciary, and those people will not authorise staff unless they are satisfied as to their competence.

Bob Neill: My hon. and learned Friend will know, and perhaps she will confirm, that the way this works in practice is that either the Lord Chief Justice or the Senior President of Tribunals makes the authorisation. Alternatively, in the case of the civil jurisdiction, for example, this will invariably at least go to the senior presiding judge or the presiding judges of the circuit. We are talking about people who, in their administrative role, never mind their judicial capacity, will have visited and met these—

Lindsay Hoyle: Order. Minister, come on. And you have had three speeches already, Bob, you don’t need to stretch the imagination of the Chamber.

Lucy Frazer: My hon. Friend, the Chair of the Select Committee, was making an important point. The rule committees are—

Lindsay Hoyle: Order. Some might think it is very important—[Interruption.] Order. Would the Minister like to sit down for a moment? In fairness, I am beginning to get a little frustrated with the people who were not here for all the speeches; we had no speakers in, and now everyone wants to come in with interventions. I have only got one Member now down to speak on Third Reading, so if people really want to make a contribution, they know what to do.

Lucy Frazer: I hope that more will put in to speak on this important subject. I wish to pick up on what my hon. Friend was saying, because he cited a number of speeches from the other place, where senior members of the judiciary were highlighting the appropriateness of the Government’s position. Lord Neuberger, former President of the Supreme Court, warned that these amendments would place
“a potential straitjacket on the ability to appoint the appropriate people to make appropriate decisions.”
He went on to reflect that there “will be many decisions” for which the experience set out in the amendments
“would be appropriate, but there will be others where less experience would be adequate for the decision-making.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 10 July 2018; Vol. 792, c. 882.]
Thirdly, I come to an important point that has not yet been mentioned in the House. The amendments would limit flexibility should new routes to legal qualifications emerge. For example, one key change that we have made in the draft regulations that we published alongside the Bill is to include fellows of the Chartered Institute of Legal Executives, or those who have passed the necessary examinations to be a CILEx fellow, among those who can give legal advice. That is a progressive step, but if we were to accept amendments 2 and 3, it would be much harder to respond to such changes in the future, as we would have to amend primary, rather than secondary, legislation.
Furthermore, a legal qualification might not be the most relevant qualification for a particular judicial function. For example, it is more helpful for a registrar in the tax tribunal to be a tax professional by background, rather than a legal professional.
The hon. Member for Bolton South East raised a number of points on independence, and I wish to start by saying that I think the judiciary, whether sitting in court or in committee, has, as my hon. Friend the Member for Cheltenham (Alex Chalk) said when he was in his place, the highest level of independence and integrity.
The hon. Lady queried, both here and in Committee, the independence of authorised staff, implying that those with a legal qualification were more likely to be independent. Under the Bill, all court and tribunal staff who are authorised to exercise judicial functions will now be independent of the Lord Chancellor when doing so, and subject only to the direction of the Lord Chief Justice or their nominee, or the Senior President of Tribunals or their delegate.
The Bill also provides, for the first time, protections from legal proceedings and costs in legal proceedings and indemnities for all authorised staff when carrying out judicial functions, which will further safeguard their independence in decision making.
Finally, amendment 5 deals with the right of reconsideration of decisions taken by authorised staff in the courts. I wish to start by acknowledging that the hon. Lady and the Opposition have listened carefully to the points made in Committee; I note there is now no amendment dealing with decisions taken by staff in the tribunals, and I welcome that.
It is right that in some circumstances a party to proceedings may wish to have the decision reconsidered, but we remain opposed to the amendment for three reasons. First, the Bill already ensures that a right of reconsideration will be available when appropriate. We believe that the independent procedure rule committees—comprised, as I and others have said, of jurisdictional experts and experienced practitioners—are best placed to decide whether such a right of further reconsideration is needed and, if so, the form that that right should take.
Indeed, the procedure rule committees in the civil and tribunals jurisdictions have already included in their respective rules a specific right to judicial reconsideration for decisions made by authorised persons in appropriate cases. For example, the magistrates courts and the family court have their own existing mechanisms for reviewing various decisions, which amendment 5 would cut across.
Secondly, the right identified by the hon. Lady is too broad, even by her own admission. In speaking to amendments in Committee, she said that
“we accept and acknowledge that one should not be able to ask for reconsideration simply because one disagrees with the decision of the authorised person; one must have a cogent reason. There must be proper grounds for requesting a reconsideration.”—[Official Report, Courts and Tribunals (Judiciary and Functions of Staff) [Lords] Public Bill Committee, 4 December 2018; c. 17.]
I was delighted to hear those words, because the Government have also been arguing, both here and in the other place, that a blanket right of reconsideration  simply would not work in practice. Yet amendment 5 would give a party in a case an automatic right to request that any decision made by an authorised person exercising the functions of a court be reconsidered by a judge, irrespective of the merits.
Thirdly, the approach we put forward is fair and balanced. The Government listened to concerns about ensuring there were adequate safeguards in the Bill. For that reason, we moved amendments on the right of reconsideration that were accepted on Report in the other place. They effectively require the rule committee, when making rules, to allow authorised staff to exercise judicial functions to consider whether each of those functions should be subject to a right to judicial reconsideration. Where a rule committee decides against the creation of a right of reconsideration, it must inform the Lord Chancellor of its decision and the reasons for it.
The hon. Lady also referred to the Briggs report, and I would like to touch on that very briefly. The recommendations made by Lord Justice Briggs are taken from the report “Civil Courts Structure Review”, the focus of which was the courts of the civil jurisdiction. While an unqualified right of reconsideration might have been appropriate to recommend for the civil courts, given their unique way of working it would be ineffective simply to transpose this recommendation on entirely different jurisdictions.
The civil procedure rule committee has built a right of reconsideration into its rules, but this will not necessarily be appropriate for other jurisdictions. It is for each jurisdiction, with the expertise it has within the rule committee, to decide what is right.
That approach has found favour in the other place. Lord Thomas, former Lord Chief Justice and former chair of the criminal procedure rule committee, said:
“I support what the Government seek to do and urge a substantial degree of caution in respect of the proposals brought forward by the noble Baroness”—
that is, Baroness Chakrabarti. He added that the Government’s approach provides the right balance:
“It gives discretion to a body that knows and has a lot of experience, but it contains that degree of explanatory accountability that will make sure that it does not do anything—even if we were to worry that it might—that goes outside a proper and just delegation”.—[Official Report, House of Lords, 16 October 2018; Vol. 793, c. 425-26.]
The Bill strikes the right balance between ensuring appropriate safeguards and transparency of decision making, and leaving the jurisdictional rule committees the discretion to determine the most appropriate mechanism for reviewing decisions by authorised people.
Finally, I would like to respond to the very important points made by the hon. Member for Sheffield, Heeley (Louise Haigh). I was very pleased to meet her and Sammy Woodhouse a week or so ago. She raised issues that are outside the scope of the Bill, but none the less what Sammy went through was harrowing and the hon. Lady made some important points. As she knows, I committed to look very carefully at the issues she raised and I assure her that we are doing that.
As the hon. Lady mentioned, we have already taken some steps. We have, as she alluded to, asked the president of the family court to look at the practice directions and he has committed to doing that with the rule committee. My officials have spoken to the Association of Directors  of Children’s Services about whether it is appropriate to send further guidance to councils on the circumstances in which they should apply to court not to give notice of hearings to parties, such as happened in the Sammy Woodhouse case. The Department will continue to look closely at those issues.
For all those reasons, this is an important Bill that will ensure that we can bring flexibility to our judges, deploy them in the most flexible way, use their resources where they are needed and not when they are not needed, and ensure that those who operate our court system do so effectively and fairly for the people they serve.
The Ministry of Justice is putting users of the court at the heart of our reforms and of our programme on court reform. The measures will not only save on cost—that is not the primary reason for them, although it is important—but ensure that cases go through the system fairly and well. For those reasons, I urge the hon. Lady to withdraw the amendment.

Yasmin Qureshi: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendment proposed: 2,in the schedule, page6,line36, at end insert—
“(aa) is a qualified solicitor, barrister or chartered legal executive with more than three years’ experience post-qualification, and”.—(Yasmin Qureshi.)
This amendment would stipulate that the minimum legal qualifications for authorised persons should be three years’ experience post-qualification.
Question put, That the amendment be made.
The House divided:
Ayes 246, Noes 308.

Question accordingly negatived.

Lindsay Hoyle: I have now to announce the result of the deferred Division on the question relating to the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority. The Ayes were 513 and the Noes were 13, so the Question was agreed to.
Amendment proposed: 5,in the schedule, page11,line32, leave out subsection 67C and insert—
“67C Right to judicial reconsideration of decision made by an authorised person
A party to any decision made by an authorised person in the execution of the person’s duty as an authorised person exercising a relevant judicial function, by virtue of section 67B(1), may apply in writing, within 14 days of the service of the order, to have the decision reconsidered by a judge of the relevant court within 14 days from the date of application.”—(Yasmin Qureshi.)
This amendment would grant people subject to a decision made under delegated powers a statutory right to judicial reconsideration.
Question put, That the amendment be made.
The House divided:
Ayes 243, Noes 312.

Question accordingly negatived.

Rosie Winterton: Consideration completed. I will now suspend the House for no more than 5 minutes in order to make a decision about certification. The Division bells will be rung two minutes before the House resumes. Following my  certification, the Government will table the appropriate consent motion, copies of which will be made available in the Vote Office and will be distributed by Doorkeepers.
Sitting suspended.
On resuming—

Rosie Winterton: I can now inform the House that I have completed certification of the Bill, as required by the Standing Order. I have confirmed the view expressed in Mr Speaker’s provisional certificate issued earlier today. Copies of my final certificate will be made available in the Vote Office and on the parliamentary website.
Under Standing Order No. 83M, a consent motion is therefore required for the Bill to proceed. Copies of the motion are available in the Vote Office and on the parliamentary website, and have been made available to Members in the Chamber. Does the Minister intend to move the consent motion?

Lucy Frazer: indicated assent.
The House forthwith resolved itself into the Legislative Grand Committee (England and Wales) (Standing Order No. 83M).
[Dame Rosie Winterton in the Chair]

David Linden: I beg to move, That the Committee sit in private.

Rosie Winterton: I am afraid I cannot accept that motion because the hon. Gentleman is not a member of the Committee.

David Linden: On a point of order, Dame Rosie. I am grateful for your indulgence. Can you clarify that the reason why I cannot move that motion is that I represent a constituency in Scotland, and am rendered a second-class Member of the House by the legislative apartheid that is English votes for English laws?

Rosie Winterton: The point is that the Legislative Grand Committee represents Members of Parliament from England and Wales. In no way does that imply that the hon. Gentleman is second-class.
I remind hon. Members that if there is a Division, only Members representing constituencies in England and Wales may vote.
Resolved,
That the Committee consents to Clause 2 of the Courts and Tribunals (Judiciary and Functions of Staff) Bill [Lords] as amended in the public bill committee.—(Lucy Frazer.)
The occupant of the Chair left the Chair to report the decision of the Committee (Standing Order No. 83M(6)).
The Deputy Speaker resumed the Chair; decision reported.

David Linden: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Before we return from the Legislative Grand Committee, my understanding is that, as a Member  representing a Scottish constituency, while I may not be able to move a motion, I can contribute verbally. Is that correct?

Rosie Winterton: I am afraid that the hon. Gentleman has rather missed his chance.

David Linden: I stood to catch your eye.

Rosie Winterton: No, I am afraid you did not. I am very sorry.
Third Reading

Lucy Frazer: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
This is a small and technical Bill, but it is a key component of our £1 billion programme of reform that will see our courts and tribunals modernised for the 21st century and, importantly, make access to justice quicker and easier for all. It is also the first step in the legislation that will underpin these reforms, as we will introduce further courts legislation as soon as parliamentary time allows.
The judicial measures in the Bill will enable greater flexibility in the deployment of judges. They will allow the senior judiciary to respond more effectively to changes in demand and to make better use of the skills and experience of the existing cohort of judges. This Bill will free up judges from the most routine tasks by enabling appropriately qualified and experienced staff in courts and tribunals to carry out a wider range of judicial functions than they can at present. Through these measures, the Bill will improve the overall effectiveness and efficiency of courts and tribunals and, importantly, it will reduce delays. This will ensure that we deliver a speedier resolution of matters, which is important in benefiting those who use our courts and tribunals system.
As I have said, this is a short Bill, so I will be brief, but I would not want to finish without thanking the hon. Member for Bolton South East (Yasmin Qureshi) and other Members of this House for the constructive way in which they have engaged on these issues. I pay tribute to the noble and learned Lord Thomas, the former Lord Chief Justice, and the noble and learned Lord Neuberger, the former President of the Supreme Court—they have been widely quoted in this House—for their wise counsel in the other place and for sharing their expertise on how the measures in the Bill will operate in practice.
I thank the Clerks and other parliamentary staff for helping the proceedings on the Bill to run so smoothly, and I extend my thanks to our hard-working Bill team, our private offices, our Parliamentary Private Secretaries and the Whips. It has been an honour to take the Bill through the House, and I look forward to seeing the important measures it contains being implemented in the coming months. On that basis, I commend the Bill to the House.

Imran Hussain: I, too, thank all hon. Members who have participated in the proceedings on the Bill today and throughout its passage for the  considered and learned contributions they have made. I also thank the Public Bill Office, as well as organisations such as the Law Society, the Bar Council and Justice for the expertise and support that they have provided throughout these proceedings.
From the outset, we have made clear our reservations about the measures contained in the Bill: the fact that there is no proper parliamentary scrutiny of the delegation of powers to non-judicial staff; the fact that there are no minimum qualifications and experience for staff to whom powers are delegated; and the fact that there is no statutory right to reconsideration by a judge of the decisions made by authorised staff. We have been clear that we are not opposed to the principle of reform and change to our courts system. However, we cannot support the changes in this Bill without the protections that we, the Bar Council and the Law Society, among other organisations, and legal professionals have called for. Unfortunately, on these matters, we feel that we have been ignored, and therefore we will oppose the Bill on Third Reading today.
Judges hold considerable power in our courts system. They have the power to commit individuals to prison, to detain, to repossess, to grant injunctions and to issue search orders, among many others, and it takes judges years to develop the experience and qualifications necessary to wield these powers. That is why we should not take the handling of powers given to them lightly, yet that is precisely what the Government are doing in this Bill. They are passing powers currently exercised by the judiciary to authorised court staff and, most crucially, they are doing so without sufficient scrutiny. The delegation of powers exercised by the procedure rule committees will be done under delegated legislation, with no more safeguards than using a motion under the negative procedure. This is not simply a procedural matter, as the Government have stated today, but one that has the potential to change the nature of our justice system.
Under the Bill, authorised staff will find themselves able to wield considerable power. Although some decisions might seem insignificant, no court decision is small or inconsequential. The smallest decision’s implications can reach far beyond the here and now, well into the advanced stages of a case. We can easily see authorised staff making decisions that are contested because the procedure rule committees, not Parliament, are granting them the power and functions. The Government should have accepted our amendment today to require that when statutory instruments delegating judicial functions to authorised persons are introduced, they are subject to the affirmative procedure, allowing Parliament the necessary scrutiny, but they chose not to do so.
The lack of scrutiny of delegated powers and functions is even more worrying considering the lack of qualifications and experience that the Bill requires to wield them. We rightly expect a minimum standard of our judges, and so do the public. We expect that decisions in our courts are made by those with experience and the necessary qualifications, which is why we have restrictions and a thorough vetting process for those who wish to become members of our judiciary. Justices of the peace—magistrates who do not hold a legal qualification—nevertheless have considerable life experience and are still advised by trained, experienced and qualified legal staff. The Government, however, have imposed none of these requirements of experience and qualification on authorised staff.
In the Public Bill Committee in the Lords, the Minister responsible stated that the minimum standards we sought to impose then, and sought to impose in the Public Bill Committee in this House and again earlier today, would be more restrictive than those that are currently imposed on people providing legal advice in magistrates and family courts. However, that is no excuse and there is no reason why, when authorised staff are making decisions that were previously made by trained and experienced judges, we should not be upholding a higher standard. The Government counter that the decisions being made by authorised staff will be limited and that they will not be contested, but they cannot give that guarantee here today, for even the most basic decisions—extending time for service and taking pleas—may give rise to contention.
Even if we were to provide tight restrictions in the Bill for decisions that were delegated to ensure that they were not contested, that would not alter the fact that even non-contested elements of cases require experience—a view supported by Sir Brian Leveson in his review of the efficiency of criminal proceedings. Furthermore, if staff were legally trained and qualified, they would still be without the benefit of the experience that our judges hold through their many years of service in our legal system. That is why experience is just as crucial here as qualifications, as shown by our amendments and by the support that they received from the Bar Council. There was no reason why the Government could not accept the amendments on this issue, and no reason for them not to hold authorised staff to a higher standard when they are granted the power to make decisions. Clearly, however, the Government thought otherwise of the Bar Council’s expertise.
Our final point is that the Bill fails to provide sufficient safeguards for the decisions that are made by authorised staff, with no statutory right to judicial reconsideration. Clearly, the Government have not taken heed of the warning to be vigilant when judicial powers are being exercised by non-members of the judiciary. The explanations that they have provided in their factsheets—that delegated decisions will not be contested—are insufficient, as are the safeguards provided by the procedure rule committees, which are too open to pressure to reduce the right to reconsideration to ease pressures and backlogs in the courts.
Any legal decision made in our courts must be open to review and appeal. It is a fundamental principle of the rule of law, and the decisions made by authorised staff should be no different, yet the Bill does not uphold that spirit by failing to make available a statutory right to reconsideration. In failing to provide that statutory right, the Government have undermined the expectation of the public that legal decisions will be made by a judge or can be reviewed by a judge, and they have undermined our courts and judicial system in the process.
The Bill is a poor replacement for what should have been a thorough Bill filled with real courts reform. We are disappointed that the Government have failed to take up the baton of reform and to change their punitive legal aid cuts, which have left thousands unable to exercise their right to access to justice, created barren legal aid deserts and allowed legal rights to degrade to the point where they are no longer worth the paper they are written on. They have failed to change course on a courts closure programme that forces people to travel miles, at great cost and difficulty, to get to their closest  courts and uphold their rights, and they have failed to address the urgent need for protection for domestic violence victims being cross-examined and questioned in the family courts by the very same people who subjected them to the abuse.

Keith Vaz: My hon. Friend is making a powerful speech, and I agree with everything he has said. There is one other aspect that I am sure he as a constituency MP, like me and others, has faced, which is the delays experienced by our constituents in the immigration tribunal, some having to wait up to two years for a decision on whether they can bring spouses into the country. Does he agree that the Government have failed to act to clear the backlog?

Imran Hussain: My right hon. Friend is a distinguished parliamentarian and, as ever, makes a really important point. It is not within the remit of the Bill—one of the problems with the Bill is that its narrow scope prevents important issues such as the one he raises from being discussed—but I absolutely agree with him.
The Bill is a shadow of what it could and should have been and fails to provide protections and safeguards on the changes the Government have introduced. It is on these grounds—the lack of protections for courts, judges and people seeking justice—that we will oppose the Bill today.

Bob Neill: It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Bradford East (Imran Hussain). We have had a constructive and civilised debate on both sides. I do not agree with all his conclusions, but none the less it has been a good debate. I particularly congratulate my hon. and learned Friend the Minister on the stellar way in which she has taken the Bill through all its stages. I am sure that it will not be the last time she does that.
I support the Bill. I would have liked a bigger Bill, and I would like not to have lost the Prisons and Courts Bill in the 2017 Dissolution, but we are where we are, and this is a valuable step forward. I particularly welcome my hon. and learned Friend’s commitment to introducing further legislation. As she and the House know, this is part of the very important courts modernisation programme, particularly on the civil side, and builds on the work of Lord Briggs of Westbourne. I know that those involved in his review are most anxious that the remaining statutory underpinnings for the updating of procedure rules and other matters be introduced as a matter of urgency, and I urge her to do that as soon as the legislative timetable permits.
I think that the Bill strikes the right balance. I would take issue with the hon. Member for Bradford East over the suggestion that the judges, exercising their oath of office on the procedure rule committees, would allow themselves to be swayed by considerations of convenience or financial matters in deciding upon the appropriate scheme of delegation. There is not a shred of evidence in the history of our modern judiciary to suggest such a thing, and it does a disservice to the judiciary. We should trust the judges.

Imran Hussain: I want to make it absolutely clear that—as I am sure the hon. Gentleman, who is Chair of the Justice Committee, will accept—no one in the  Opposition is challenging in any way, shape or form the good standing of the judiciary. The point, which has been made time and again, is that certain matters are within the remit of the procedure rule committees, but there are others that this House and the other place should have scrutiny of.

Bob Neill: I thank the hon. Gentleman for what he has said, and I entirely accept the intentions behind it. We will have to differ on the question where the line should be drawn between which decisions are appropriate for Parliament decide and which are appropriate for the judiciary, but I am grateful for the sentiments that he has expressed, which I am sure have reassured us all.
I am happy to proceed on the basis of recent advice from senior judges who have been referred to in the debate and on the basis of what is in the Bill. It will make savings, and at this point perhaps I can put in a plug to the Minister. It might be appropriate, for example, to use that £6 million-plus to restore the funding for the Family Drug and Alcohol Court National Unit. I particularly regret that we have lost some of the emphasis on problem-solving courts following the loss of the Prisons and Courts Bill. Perhaps, given that we now have a unified planning court, we could also consider the Lord Flight’s suggestion in the other place for the establishment of a unified housing court.
Having made those suggestions for what might happen in future, I will end by saying that I welcome the Bill and will support it today.

Andrew Slaughter: Let me begin by saying that it was indeed a pleasure to serve on the Bill Committee, not least because of its brevity. I think that the Minister alluded to that when she described it as a small Bill. It is a small Bill, but I am afraid it is also a rather inadequate and unsatisfactory Bill. I am not going to repeat the excellent speech made by my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford East (Imran Hussain), but he was absolutely right to say that there were no adequate safeguards, and that the nature of the delegation of functions has not been specified sufficiently for us to feel certain that we can support it.
As my hon. Friend observed, the most disappointing aspect of the Bill is that it represents just the shards, or the remains, of the legislation on this subject that we were promised. We hear a great deal about the—is it the £1 billion programme of investment in digitisation in the courts? However, the Bill goes nowhere towards addressing this. Nor does it deal with the oft-raised concerns of Members about how that is being funded and about funding through court closures.
Let me give one brief example. You will understand why I picked this example, Madam Deputy Speaker. This week I asked the House of Commons Library for a list of court closures since 2010. It gave me a list of 156 courts and buildings that had been closed since then, but one figure stood out. Hammersmith magistrates court accounts for nearly 20% of the entire saving that the Government have made during that time. Some courts have been sold for £1, but Hammersmith magistrates court was sold for £43 million. Perhaps the Government are rubbing their hands and saying what a valuable contribution that is to the reform agenda.
Let me make these points to the Minister, if the Minister will listen. I will wait until I have her attention.
A couple of years ago, the Minister’s predecessor, the right hon. and learned Member for North East Hertfordshire (Sir Oliver Heald), called me in for a tête-à-tête and showed me a planning brief for what would happen to Hammersmith magistrates court after it was sold. Apparently, it was to become a mixed housing development. The Minister may like to know that it has now been sold to the developers of an 850-bedroom hotel, who are currently awaiting planning consent.
I would like the answers to two questions, not necessarily today but at some point. First, how much did the Minister’s Department spend on drawing up that detailed planning brief and marketing it for a purpose which has now gone completely by the board? Secondly, notwithstanding the large capital receipt, does she believe that it is fair recompense for a site on which, apparently, there is to be an 850-bedroom hotel? In fact, two will be built on one site. This shows the folly of the way in which the Government are conducting their programme of investment and disinvestment. When courts are closed, the detriment to communities is obvious, and in the case of Hammersmith magistrates court the closure did not take place for operational reasons; its purpose was purely to generate a capital receipt.
The Bill will no doubt be passed today, despite our assertive opposition to it, but we will return to more serious matters on a subsequent occasion. We must subject the Bill to further scrutiny, and the Government must present the House with proposals for legislation to deal with the serious questions of how that digitisation and so-called reform programme is or is not working, and what the cost to our community is of the loss of well-established and vital court facilities.

John Howell: I spoke on Second Reading and pointed out the extent to which the courts were undergoing reform. A number of Members have commented on that today and I will not go over what I said in that earlier debate again. It is understood that we are seeing a major reform process and the work of Lord Briggs on this is well understood, but to judge the effectiveness of those reforms and this Bill we must determine whether it passes two tests. First, does it make it easier and swifter to obtain justice? Secondly, does it provide better access to justice? The Bill passes both tests.
The Bill provides better access to justice by making sure that is quicker and swifter, and achieves that by freeing up judges’ time to focus on the most pressing cases. As I said on Second Reading, when I was on the Industry and Parliament Trust course I sat with judges and was able to see their enormous workload. Anything we can do to help free that up has to be a very good thing.
I echo, too, the comments of my hon. and learned Friend the Minister on the planning and housing courts. I have sat with a judge on a planning court, and I thought it achieved a tremendous amount in bringing things together. I take particular pleasure in the work Lord Thomas has done on this, as a former Lord Chief Justice and a reforming Lord Chief Justice. He went out of his way to help reform the system and I am glad he is still doing so. The comments of Lord Neuberger have also been excellent.
I assure the Minister that I support this Bill.

Julian Knight: I commend my hon. Friend the Member for Henley (John Howell) on his excellent speech.
It was a great pleasure to serve on this Committee. Despite the toing and froing there was also a lot of cross-party agreement in the Committee; it must be acknowledged that there was some real working together.
The Bill opens up greater flexibility and will over time open up new technologies and the ability to deploy them in order to provide better access to justice. I had a fantastic briefing from the Ministry of Justice where officials went through all the things that will go live over the next few months and years in terms of accessing justice online. I was greatly encouraged by that. I pay tribute to my hon. and learned Friend the Minister who has piloted that and is a champion of it, and who has made real headway in that regard. It will make a real difference on the ground.
The delegation of judicial functions, as my hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Robert Neill) said, is a logical follow-on from the Briggs report. These changes will save £6 million. There will be greater access to justice and greater use of technology. I hope that that £6 million gets ploughed into some of the schemes my colleagues have spoken about. The Ministry of Justice does a fantastic job on what are, we must acknowledge, limited resources due to the financial situation we inherited.
I am happy to support the Bill, and full speed ahead.
Question put, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
The House divided:
Ayes 302, Noes 233.

Question accordingly agreed to.
Bill read the Third time and passed, with amendments.

BUSINESS WITHOUT DEBATE

DELEGATED LEGISLATION

Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 118(6)),

Exiting the European Union (Companies)

That the draft Takeovers (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019, which were laid before this House on 29 October, be approved.—(Rebecca Harris.)
Question agreed to.

Diabetes: Artificial Pancreas

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—(Rebecca Harris.)

George Howarth: I would like to begin with some acknowledgements to those who contributed towards the material that I will be using today, so let me place on record my thanks to Dr Jacq Allan from Birkbeck University and the charity Diabetics with Eating Disorders; Sandie Atkinson-Goulding; Dr Weston and Dr Zaidi from the Royal Liverpool University Hospital; the Juvenile Diabetes Research Foundation; Incisive Health; and Diabetes UK. I thank them all for sharing their expertise, briefing notes and academic work with me.
I intend to highlight the technology that is available for people with type 1 diabetes, point out some issues surrounding access to technologies and say a few words about the lack of structured education and psychological support available for type 1 diabetics. To conclude, I will make some suggestions to the Minister on what the Government can do to progress towards artificial pancreas systems.
Type 1 diabetes is an autoimmune condition, where an individual cannot naturally produce insulin. According to JDRF, this condition affects 400,000 people in the UK, of whom 29,000 are children. JDRF is leading on and funding the design of an artificial pancreas, which will change the lives of those affected by type 1 diabetes considerably. The artificial pancreas is in advanced human trials and the work in the UK is being led by Professor Roman Hovorka at the University of Cambridge, with funding from JDRF. Artificial pancreas systems automate blood-sugar management, dramatically reducing type 1 diabetes-related risks and improving the lives of people who have the condition. The artificial pancreas consists of a continuous glucose monitor, a computer programme and an insulin pump that work together to automatically control background insulin levels. These artificial pancreas systems, which may be a combination of existing or newly developed continuous glucose monitoring systems and insulin pump technology, have been termed the “artificial pancreas” because they monitor and adjust insulin levels just as the pancreas does in people who do not suffer from diabetes. Artificial pancreas systems have the potential to transform lives, particularly for those who find it difficult to maintain good blood-glucose control.

Sandy Martin: Does my right hon. Friend agree that simple continuous glucose monitors that are already available—I believe the Prime Minister wears one—are still not being allowed to children and young people who would benefit from them because some clinical commissioning groups do not prescribe them? When I asked the Secretary of State about this affair, I was told that the Department has no intention of monitoring what CCGs measure. Does my right hon. Friend agree that that is not a satisfactory state of affairs?

George Howarth: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that intervention. He is right in what he says, and I will be covering precisely that point later in my speech.
A recent JDRF-funded trial found that the artificial pancreas is better at helping people to manage their glucose levels than the best currently available technology. People who used the artificial pancreas spent 65% of time with glucose levels in range, which compares with 54% of time for people using a continuous glucose monitor and an insulin pump. Unfortunately, as my hon. Friend mentioned, there are significant regional variations in access to existing diabetes technologies, such as insulin pumps, in many parts of the country. The most recent national diabetes audit, published in July 2018, shows that although the overall uptake of insulin pumps has increased, the proportion of people with type 1 diabetes attending specialist services who are treated with pumps varies from a pitiful 5% to 40% at best.

Steve McCabe: I do not know whether my right hon. Friend is familiar with a group called #WeAreNotWaiting. They are people who are developing their own equipment, pumps, monitoring system and computers, because they are not prepared to wait for technology that could be made available to help them.
As my right hon. Friend says, the pumps are available but not widely available on the NHS, despite being a leading British technology. Of course, the other problem is that there is no push from the Government for concerted commercial development of these systems in this country.

George Howarth: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that intervention. I am aware of the #WeAreNotWaiting group and as recently as earlier today I had an email from one of them. I will not name them, because I do not have permission to do so.

Jim Shannon: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

George Howarth: I will give way in a moment. I just want to finish answering the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Steve McCabe).
The email reads: “As someone who has built an artificial pancreas using the open artificial pancreas system and is reaping the rewards from this technology, I just wanted to wish you good luck with this evening’s Adjournment debate. Having been a type 1 for 38 years, I can confirm that this is truly life-changing.”
Before I give way to the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon), I want to say a word about those who are manufacturing their own artificial pancreases. In some respects, we should celebrate that there are so many young people out there who have the ability to build what is in effect an artificial pancreas, while, at the same time, writing their own algorithms to link them together. That is truly amazing.
I have a background—this is a long time ago—in engineering and I cannot even conceive of doing that, so it is very encouraging that people are doing it. On the other hand, I worry. I have spoken to clinicians and one said to me, “I’ve looked at some of them and they are viable devices, but I worry about people building something that is not reliable and then relying upon it. There could  be serious consequences down the line.” But this does show what is possible when people—in their bedrooms or in their mum and dad’s garage—are effectively able to control their own diabetes.

Jim Shannon: I congratulate the right hon. Gentleman on securing this debate on using modern technology to deal with diabetes. I declare an interest as a type 2 diabetic. I know other Members in the Chamber have similar ailments.
Northern Ireland has some of the highest levels of diabetes in the whole of the United Kingdom. We have the highest level of type 1 diabetics among children in the whole of the United Kingdom per head of population. That gives an idea of the importance of this debate.
I am very interested in the success of the artificial pancreas given to a teenager in Leeds. Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that this revolutionises both treatment and quality of life, but that it must be available throughout the whole of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland? It must not be a postcode lottery. This must be available as a matter of course for those who fit the protocol. Will the Minister tell us how we can do that across the whole of the United Kingdom of Great Britain—Scotland, Wales, England—and Northern Ireland?

George Howarth: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman, who must be psychic, because that is the very next point I was going to make.
There have been, as the hon. Gentleman says, postcode lottery-style problems with accessing the technology. For example, with FreeStyle Libre, a flash glucose monitoring device, patients in Liverpool are able to get it on prescription if they meet the criteria. That is very welcome, but many patients from outside the area cannot get one, as up to 30% of CCGs do not fund them. There needs to be more work done on that and I know the Government have made an announcement, which I will refer to in a moment.
Thanks to Diabetes UK’s campaign on 14 November, World Diabetes Day, NHS England announced that from April 2019 the FreeStyle Libre will be made available to all who meet the clinical criteria regardless of where they live. That is a very welcome development. I do not think it will apply to Northern Ireland, but I hope a similar policy is adopted in Northern Ireland. Innovation in diabetes technology is evolving rapidly in exciting ways.

Liz McInnes: I thank my right hon. Friend for giving way. To go back to the postcode lottery of funding, I wonder whether the Minister will talk in her winding-up speech about the work of the Scottish diabetes technology improvement plan, which was supported by £12 million of funding and has resulted in increased insulin pump usage in Scotland. I wonder whether we might emulate that scheme.

George Howarth: The common-sense approach is to look at what is going on elsewhere—in Scotland and in other parts of the world—to get the best of what is available and use it in the most effective way. My hon. Friend is quite right about that.
It is pointless giving type 1 diabetics the latest technologies, such as an artificial pancreas system, if they are not given structured education to support them  to use the technology that is available. The limited uptake of educational programmes is a matter of great concern, and I hope the Minister shares that concern. Despite guidance from the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence, in 2014-15 only 2% of people newly diagnosed with type 1 diabetes were recorded as having attended structured education courses. For some, that lack of knowledge of the key principles of self-management is a major barrier to the use of technology, because without sufficient education, type 1 diabetics are not equipped to get the best results from the technology available.

Mike Penning: This is a very important debate and I am pleased we have time to listen to it. I will have to go and listen to my leader at 5 o’clock, so I apologise if I leave in the middle of the debate. With type 1 and type 2 diabetes, it is crucial to diagnose as early as possible. With type 1, which is very different from type 2, it is possible to diagnose very early on in the life of that person. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will allude to the differences between lifestyle issues and something that a person normally has when they are born. Surely the answer is testing early, so people can find out and have their educational needs met, and hopefully the product can be available across this great nation of ours.

George Howarth: I am glad that the right hon. Gentleman, who has a background in these matters, has drawn attention to the distinction between type 1 and type 2 diabetes. That is not to say that one is superior to the other, but they are two entirely different conditions brought about by entirely different circumstances. As I said in opening my speech, type 1 diabetes is an auto-immune condition. Nobody is entirely sure what triggers it in some people, but those in whom it is triggered have some predisposition towards the condition.

Keith Vaz: Will my right hon. Friend give way?

George Howarth: I have not quite finished answering the right hon. Member for Hemel Hempstead (Sir Mike Penning). It is particularly important to draw the distinction for young people because, often, young people with type 1 diabetes are bullied very cruelly on the basis that their peers in school accuse them of having brought it on themselves by eating too many sweets or too much sugar. Of course, that is complete nonsense, but that does not stop that kind of bullying taking place.

Keith Vaz: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on securing the debate and on being a champion for those with diabetes throughout his parliamentary career. Can I take him back to the issue of structured education, which is one of the great pillars of diabetes care? We do not do it well enough and we do not give those with type 1 diabetes enough support. Does he agree that it is important to ensure that all CCGs give proper consideration to who delivers that kind of education? It should not be delivered by anyone other than those with the expertise to deliver it.

George Howarth: Yes. I pay tribute to my right hon. Friend, who does a massive amount of work as chair of the all-party group on diabetes. He is very knowledgeable on the subject and the issues involved, and he is of  course right. I think I had already said more or less the same thing as he just said, but obviously I agree with myself and with my right hon. Friend.
Let me move on to the digital solutions, such as apps, which could offer platforms to deliver education in a convenient and personalised format. I should add the rider that mobile apps need to be safe, reliable and accredited to be clinically safe. It worries me that some apps out there are produced commercially but do not contain wholly accurate information. It is unsafe to rely on apps that are not properly accredited and that have not been assessed and evaluated by experts who know what they are talking about.
In addition to the low uptake of structured education, the number of specialists working in diabetes care is falling. Between 2010 and 2012, there was a 3% fall in the number of NHS sites that employ any diabetes specialist nurses. Anyone who has any experience of dealing with young people with diabetes will know that nurse specialists are often the very best possible source of advice.
In the light of this shortage, a national network of centres—possibly between eight and 10 expert diabetes technology centres, supported by virtual clinics—could well be a potential platform for the development of more effective structured education for patients, and for professionals as well. I shall say more about that in a moment. Such a network would be helpful for training future generations of diabetes clinicians effectively to provide artificial pancreases, and in the development and evaluation of new technologies.
One of the problems that type 1 diabetes sufferers tell me that they experience is the merry-go-round of different services that they have to access. They may have a problem with neuropathy, or a foot or eye problem, but they cannot access all those services in one place. Many diabetologists, although brilliant at dealing with the diabetes side of the problem, are not equipped to deal with young people who have, for example, psychological problems. All the services need to be better integrated.

Mike Penning: I do apologise, Madam Deputy Speaker, but I will have to slip away straight after this intervention.
One group of people the right hon. Gentleman missed out, although it was not intentional, was parents. When a child is diagnosed with type 1 diabetes, there is a journey for the parents as well as the child, so there needs to be support for them. I completely agree with the right hon. Gentleman that diabetes does not pick on certain people from certain areas; it just picks on an individual. Sometimes it is hereditary—a lot of work is being done around the hereditary route—but it is not a choice; it is something that comes on to the family, rather than just the individual.

George Howarth: The right hon. Gentleman is right, and it was an omission on my part not to have acknowledged that. Any parent of a diabetic child has to experience the disease—at second hand, but in very important ways. The younger the child, the more responsibility parents have to take, so that is important. By the way, training and other support for parents needs to be built into the system.

Jim Shannon: I just want to reinforce what we do for diabetics in Northern Ireland. The surgery that I belong to, in Cuan in Kircubbin, holds diabetic classes twice a  year. The staff there do tests on all the diabetics—type 1 and type 2—including for their blood pressure, feet, eyes and all the other things they need to test in the clinics. The surgery then reports back on those tests. For instance, patients will get an eyesight test a month after they have been to the clinic. That shows that there are ways of dealing with this. I am not sure whether surgeries on the United Kingdom mainland do something just as good, but perhaps they should.

George Howarth: There are centres where people can access a lot of services in one place in a similar way to what the hon. Gentleman describes as happening in Northern Ireland.
I attended an interesting conference in Vancouver three or four years ago. I found out—the Minister or one of her colleagues might want to investigate this a bit further—that some of the smaller island states tend to provide all the services in one place because they do not have the capacity or resources to do anything else. It is an accident of geography that they are forced to do that, but it seems to work very well, particularly in some of the Pacific island areas, where there is a massive problem with type 2 diabetes.

Jim Cunningham: I apologise for coming to the debate a bit late. My right hon. Friend may have touched on this; the issue affects not only families, but schools, which need to have a bigger appreciation of the difficulties that kids experience not only with diabetes, but in other areas. I had a private Member’s Bill some years ago that proposed a cluster of schools having a specialist who could spot early problems with children, including diabetes and all sorts of mental health problems. Does he agree that would be helpful?

George Howarth: My hon. Friend may have been late, but he is never behind. Of course I agree with him.
In October, I tabled a written parliamentary question to the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, asking how many patients with type 1 diabetes had been referred for psychological support, psychiatric support, and treatment for an eating disorder or diabulimia in the last 12 months. I was told that the information is not held centrally. I then took the matter up with Knowsley clinical commissioning group, but it turns out that it does not hold that information either.
The lack of psychological support for adults and young people with type 1 diabetes is a real and important issue. It was one of the key points in the national service framework for diabetes when that was first brought into being. Most patients on Merseyside, which is my part of the world, still cannot get the support that they need.
Diabulimia, which is a syndrome, rather than a condition, is an eating disorder present among those with type 1 diabetes. It involves the omission of insulin doses, which leads to high blood glucose levels and the body’s cells being deprived of oxygen and energy. The available research suggests that around 40% of females between the ages of 15 and 30 with type 1 diabetes deliberately induce hyperglycaemia and diabetic ketoacidosis in order to bring about weight loss. Anyone can go on the internet and quite easily find out that if they omit to use their insulin, they can probably lose half a stone in a  week, but of course the risks in involved in doing so, including damage to vital organs, should not be taken at all.
According to the charity Diabetics with Eating Disorders, 60% of all females with type 1 diabetes will have experienced a clinically diagnosable eating disorder by the age of 25, and new research suggests that 11% of adolescent males also engage in insulin omission for weight loss. I just want to pause at this point and say a word: although I am describing something that affects type 1 diabetics, it is all part of a wider problem of body image and an obsession with a particular type of weight range. Although diabetics, because of their condition, have a different means of achieving that weight loss, it is an issue that has to be addressed nationally. I know that the fashion industry, for example, has started to make some moves in that direction, but it is a national problem, particularly for many young women who feel that they have to look a certain way to be acceptable. That is, of course, nonsensical, but, nevertheless, it is the way that some of them feel.
Sandie Atkinson, a PhD candidate at Liverpool John Moores University, believes that there is a lot more that clinics can do to reduce the psychological impact of type 1 diabetes and, as a consequence, reduce the prevalence of diabulimia. She says:
“By being empathetic to the issues that impact blood glucose level outside of the realm of an individual’s ability to manage and having realistic expectations of them in light of these uncontrollable factors, individuals might feel less inclined to hide their true condition from Healthcare Professionals. The likelihood of them being more open would undoubtedly be in the best interest of the patients and the NHS at large.”
While conducting her research, those whom Sandie spoke to described the problems that they had in accessing support in clinics. One participant said:
“Eating disorders thrive on secrecy and yet people feel with diabetes they can’t be honest about the expectations of where they are with control so there’s two lots of secrecy there that really does a lot more damage”.
A second interviewee said:
“There’s something about the way that we treat diabetes and I don’t know if it’s maybe because there is some internal stigma, but there’s something needs to be done…I just kind of feel like we’ve got it all wrong…right from the off you should have a psychologist…at least for the first year. I mean the research is all there, suicide risk goes up, self-harm risk goes up, mental health declines…We know this but we’re like, ‘oh yeah, we’ll see you in six months’ time’.”
To progress towards artificial pancreas systems, there are a number of things that the Government must do. The NHS needs to establish a new national framework that encourages innovation. The framework could include some of the following elements: first, a national strategy, with allocated funding, for diabetes technology, allowing all people with type 1 diabetes to self-manage their condition by considering individual medical need and the potential to improve quality of life and psychological aspects of care.

Steve McCabe: If the NHS were to develop that approach, would it not, as well as giving people much more freedom, autonomy and control over their life, produce massively more data—the strongest commodity in the NHS at the moment—which would mean that we could predict this condition, and look at other possible methods of controlling or treating it?

George Howarth: My hon. Friend is right, and I did highlight earlier that I was unable to get statistics, either centrally or at CCG level. It is important that we collect more data, interpret it properly, and use it to inform policy.
Secondly, there should be mandatory funding accompanying any positive guidance from the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence as part of a technology appraisal, and a national clinical consensus pathway that covers artificial pancreas technology, with NICE incorporating that into commissioning guidance. That sounds very bureaucratic, but if it was taken seriously, it could have a major positive impact.
Thirdly, there should be progressive procurement policies that recognise the value, within the foundations of artificial pancreas policy, of innovations such as continuous glucose monitoring and insulin pump therapy. We should encourage continuous glucose monitoring with integration capacity, and insulin pumps that have artificial pancreas potential. I would also encourage continued innovation in diabetes technology. If we are to progress towards an artificial pancreas, the foundations need to be better established across the country; that is in addition to the changes I have highlighted. A 2018 audit of the use of insulin pumps showed a positive increase in usage, but also highlighted a wide disparity between specialist services, which we have already mentioned.

Sandy Martin: Is it not the case that in CCG areas where specialist pumps and continuous glucose monitors are prescribed regularly, the amount of emergency care needed for people with type 1 diabetes is reduced? Not investing in those things makes no financial sense whatever.

George Howarth: My hon. Friend is right. This is not just about technology, important though that is. Anyone with diabetes who manages it well—and technology will help to do that—will have fewer hospital emergency admittances. I do not have the statistics to hand—I am not even sure they exist—but those people will clearly have fewer hospital admittances and fewer complications with their diabetes, and therefore cost the NHS less. As I am sure the Minister will acknowledge, however, the NHS is not very good at doing cost-benefit analysis. It needs to get smarter at it, because the point that my hon. Friend makes is right, not only as regards the support we give to people with type 1 diabetes, but about the cost to the NHS of dealing with the consequences.

Liz McInnes: I want to echo the point about cost-benefit analyses and how bad the NHS is at joining up different departments’ budgets. It really needs to get better at being able to identify that spend in one area leads to a huge reduction in spending in another.

George Howarth: My hon. Friend makes the point more clearly and eloquently than I did.
A new device that takes us closer to the artificial pancreas has been developed by Medtronic: the MiniMed 670G. A number of people with type 1 diabetes have started using the system in the UK in a pilot phase before it is rolled out more widely across the country. However, only 15.6% of those with type 1 diabetes are using insulin pumps, and it is potentially a concern that healthcare professionals would be unlikely to recommend an artificial pancreas if someone was not already using  a pump and continuous glucose monitoring. If the issues to do with NHS access to today’s type 1 diabetes technology can be addressed, a path can be cleared towards adoption of the artificial pancreas.
We need to ensure that people living with diabetes are equipped with the skills to self-manage. That would support patients in using current technologies effectively, and ultimately in using artificial pancreas systems. Structured education is central to enabling people living with type 1 diabetes to best manage their condition through effective use of monitors and insulin pumps. The NHS can support type 1 diabetics to do that by increasing the provision and uptake of diabetes education. To do that, it needs to make diabetes education courses more accessible and convenient, possibly through digital solutions.
A recent survey by Dexcom revealed that more than three quarters of people with diabetes suffer from stress, anxiety attacks or bouts of deep depression. While healthcare teams help, and teach people how to manage their blood glucose levels, type 1 diabetes is largely a self-managed condition. The NHS needs to ensure that the resources and community support that people with type 1 diabetes require are well advertised, well recognised, well understood and well invested in. I believe we are on the threshold of being able to make type 1 diabetes not a thing of the past, but a thing that can be well and easily managed, and I hope the Minister will take these words seriously and do everything she can to advance that day.

Keith Vaz: It is an honour to follow my right hon. Friend the Member for Knowsley (Mr Howarth), who has been an hon. Friend for almost 30 years and is a great champion for those with diabetes, in particular type 1 diabetes.
I declare an interest, as a type 2 bordering on type 1 diabetic. The usual suspects are here, including my hon. Friend the Member for Heywood and Middleton (Liz McInnes) and the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon), who has popped out but I know will be back. The Government Benches are empty, apart from the Minister and the Lord Commissioner of Her Majesty’s Treasury, the hon. Member for Finchley and Golders Green (Mike Freer), because Conservative Members are listening to the most famous type 1 diabetic in the world, if we discount Halle Berry and Mary Tyler Moore. I admire so much the way in which the Prime Minister does her job, with all the demands on her, as a type 1 diabetic—we do not even notice, and that is because of the technology that has been developed and the way in which she conducts herself.

Liz McInnes: Among the most famous type 1 diabetics, we must not forget Sir Steven Redgrave, the Olympic rower.

Keith Vaz: Indeed. Before anyone else jumps up with another name, I include all diabetics in what I am saying.
The Prime Minister and others such as myself talk about diabetes, and we are not cowering in corners; we are debating it openly. Because of technological advances, we are able to do our jobs and continue with our lives in a way that was not possible when diabetes was first discovered 100 years or so ago.
The first artificial pancreas, which was developed by Sir George Alberti through funding from Diabetes UK, was the size of a filing cabinet. Madam Deputy Speaker, can you imagine walking around with an artificial pancreas of that size? We should always acknowledge the research and innovation of which my right hon. Friend the Member for Knowsley spoke and the power of science to change people’s lives.
I want to give a few examples from my own city of Leicester of the work that has been done on diabetes. There is the work done by Professor Kamlesh Khunti and Melanie Davies of the University of Leicester; my own general practitioner, Professor Azhar Farooqi, who diagnosed me with diabetes—had I not been diagnosed, I might not be standing here today, because I did not know what the symptoms were—and Professor Joan Taylor from De Montfort University, who began developing her own version of the artificial pancreas.
It was very interesting to learn from my right hon. Friend’s speech about all the other clever people—probably much cleverer than all of us here—who have been able to develop their own artificial pancreas. Not all of them will be able to fly, so to speak, but it is amazing that people are putting their minds to it, and Professor Joan Taylor at De Montfort has done the same. There is also Professor Hovorka of Cambridge University who, like George Alberti, was funded by Diabetes UK in developing the artificial pancreas. These people deserve our respect and admiration for what they do, because they spend day after day trying to make the medical breakthrough that will help people and save so many lives. I want to thank them for what they have done, because their work has enabled us to get to the position we are in today.
There are also the private companies. Members do of course criticise, as we are entitled to do, the profits made by drugs companies. The Minister will know because she has to sign the cheques—perhaps she does not sign the cheques, but she sends them to the Treasury to get them signed—when the bills come through for the artificial pancreases and the metformins or Glucophages and all the other things that we take. The cost has gone up and there is no doubt that the drugs companies do make very big profits, but they should be commended for putting back so much of their profits into research and development. That is something that the Government cannot do, but it is something that those companies do every single day.
In acknowledging the huge cost of drugs, we also have to acknowledge what companies such as Novo Nordisk do. I declare an interest in relation to Novo Nordisk, because it has worked with the all-party group on diabetes, which I chair, for a number of years. Roche Diabetes Care is another such company, and there are many more. There are so many of them that I cannot name them all, but they have all been involved, and they will all invest and research until the breakthrough comes.
We know from FreeStyle Libre what Abbott has done. I remember the former Prime Minister—it is of course based in David Cameron’s old constituency—telling me five years ago about Abbott and the work it was doing on FreeStyle Libre. Now, thanks to the decision of Ministers, FreeStyle Libre is available, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Knowsley has said. That is  why, when we have that breakthrough, it is vital that such a facility and such equipment is available to all, irrespective of where they live.
We did not have access to FreeStyle Libre in Leicester, even though we have so many experts at Leicester University and De Montfort, until the decision taken by the Government. Actually, we will not get access to it until next April, so my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Steve McCabe) and others will have constituents who still want to get FreeStyle Libre, but cannot do so. We do not want that to happen for those who need pumps and artificial pancreases, because it is vital that they get such equipment straightaway. If they do not, it will affect their lives.
What my right hon. Friend the Member for Knowsley said about wellbeing or mental health and diabetes was interesting. That is something that people very rarely recognise, and I have only myself recognised it, having been a sufferer for the past two years or so. They do not actually know it because they think it is part of their condition. For type 1 diabetics, it is even worse. We can just have our pills—I take six in the morning and three at night; some people take more—but the fact is that they live with the injection of insulin for this condition for the rest of their lives.
The deputy leader of the Labour party, my hon. Friend the Member for West Bromwich East (Tom Watson)—obviously, he is not in his place today, because he has other things to do—has reversed his type 2 diabetes. Anyone who sees him in the Division Lobbies will know that he looks a completely different man from the person I knew when I voted for him to be the deputy leader, because he has adopted the Pioppi diet and changed his lifestyle. He does all the things that I do not, because I do not manage my diabetes particularly well. However, people cannot do that with type 1—it is with them forever. The right hon. Member for Hemel Hempstead (Sir Mike Penning), who obviously has gone to Committee Room 14, mentioned that there is that fundamental difference. Sometimes when we talk about the thousands —or the millions, now—who have type 2 diabetes as opposed to type 1, we talk about people changing their lifestyle, their diet or their wellbeing, but that does not apply to the type 1s.

Sandy Martin: Does my right hon. Friend believe that it would help an awful lot of people with type 1 diabetes if we changed the name of the disease, given that it is completely different from type 2?

Keith Vaz: Of course. There is the possibility of doing that—as we do with cancer, for example, which is a much more emotive illness. Of course, people can die from diabetes complications. My mother died from diabetes complications. What I am noticing from the correspondence that I get as chair of the all-party group is that people are writing to say that their relatives have died of diabetes complications and that clinicians are now putting that on death certificates and, in some cases, voiding insurance. I had a very interesting meeting with an insurance company recently that wanted to void the insurance of a particular individual because they had not notified it that they had type 2 diabetes. I asked its chief executive, “If you cross a road and you are knocked down by a car, and you have type 2 diabetes but didn’t know it and had not notified the company,  would you still have your insurance voided?” and he said, “Yes,” which is outrageous. The implications are huge. This is a wide area, Madam Deputy Speaker, and I do not want to try your patience by talking about the whole, global aspects of diabetes. We could be here all night. Forget about the 7 o’clock Adjournment motion—we would be here forever, but actually, we need to be specific about type 1.
In answer to the question from my hon. Friend the Member for Ipswich (Sandy Martin), perhaps there is a case for doing what he suggested, because “type 1” and “type 2” are still very technical, whereas with cancer, there is the type of cancer that someone is suffering from. People may not understand that, so it is worth exploring, and we could certainly do that at the all-party group. The vice-chair, my hon. Friend the Member for Heywood and Middleton (Liz McInnes), is here—we will be able to look at it—and my right hon. Friend the Member for Knowsley is a frequent visitor. Let us see what we can do about it in future.
I want to end with three asks of the Minister through the good offices of my right hon. Friend. We have talked about CCGs, but we do not have the capacity in CCGs for diabetes champions. We still do not know how many specialist diabetic nurses there are in regions or even in constituencies. The hon. Member for Gosport (Caroline Dinenage) is a Health Minister, so I am sure that everyone will jump about when she goes back to her constituency, but if she asks the question, “Do we have a list of specialist diabetic nurses?” the answer is no. Do we have a list of those doctors such as David Unwin and others who are doing incredible work on diabetes—even if that work is not shared elsewhere? The answer is no. In answers to parliamentary questions, I have a list of “don’t knows” coming back from Ministers. That is no criticism of the Minister—it is just that Ministers do not know. They do not keep that information centrally. My right hon. Friend the Member for Knowsley and I, as former Ministers, know that we had to sign PQs like that, too, when we just did not have the answers, because the information is not kept centrally. However, some of this information should be—there should be information about who the specialist nurses are—so could we get the CCGs together in some way to talk to them about the issues raised by my right hon. Friend, because lives are time-limited if they do not have access to the equipment that he is talking about?
The second issue is that the Government must be prepared to make a commitment, although not to providing additional funding, because the NHS is stretched. Where private sector companies, such as Roche and others, are investing and doing research that will benefit the public, is there any way to assist them by providing them with greater capacity to research, whether through encouragement, incentives or some other means? We need to do that because we do not have the money to do the research ourselves.
The third issue concerns personnel in the Department. I was astonished to learn that the Secretary of State had still not met the diabetes tsar, Professor Jonathan Valabhji. I tabled a question asking when he last met him, and it turned out he had never met the very expert appointed by the Government to assist in these matters. He is an outstanding diabetes tsar—probably the best the country has ever had—a frequent visitor to our meetings and a professor at St Mary’s, but he has not met the Secretary  of State. Please will the Minister talk to her colleagues and ask that one of them meet with Professor Valabhji? It would be helpful if it was the Secretary of State, though, and would be of some assistance to him.
My final point concerns that made by the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) and my right hon. Friend the Member for Knowsley. Diabetics such as myself—the same applies to type 1 diabetics—have to see nine different professionals, but we see them on different days, at different times and in different places. When we have our bloods done, there should be someone to help us with structured education, which is vital—we should not be made to book another appointment for another day when perhaps we cannot make it; there should be someone to check our eyes, too; and all this at the same time.
In Leicester, we are developing the first diabetes village, where a patient can do the lot on a Saturday morning—all eight of the main functions, including wellbeing, mental health and lifestyle. If someone with type 2 diabetes goes to the doctor in Doha and gets a prescription, before they get their medication, they are sent to a gym to make sure they make the necessary lifestyle changes before their medication kicks in. They have medical centres there with the panoply of services diabetics need.
Tomorrow, we will be holding an international diabetes summit in Committee Room 14, if it is vacated in time. In that respect, my message to Conservative Members is: get on with it, as the Prime Minister would say, and finish it off tonight—I do not have a vote in that election—so that we can have Committee Room 14 back. The Diabetes Minister, the hon. Member for Winchester (Steve Brine), and people from China, Denmark and Italy, are coming to share their experiences, and type 1 diabetes will be high on the agenda. The more of these meetings we hold in this place, the better it is to keep diabetes on the agenda.
Once again, I thank my right hon. Friend for securing this debate and for making sure we talk about these issues, and I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Heywood and Middleton, too, for her last debate on diabetes. We should keep putting in for these debates to make sure this is the highest possible priority for the Government.

Caroline Dinenage: I thank the right hon. Member for Knowsley (Mr Howarth) for his incredible work highlighting the importance of the right treatment for type 1 diabetes and of making use of technology in that treatment. I also thank him for giving us this opportunity to debate the issue. He has made some incredibly valuable suggestions, as indeed has the right hon. Member for Leicester East (Keith Vaz). I have listened with great interest and will carefully consider some of their fascinating suggestions.
Supporting the rising number of people with diabetes is one of the major clinical challenges of the 21st century, and improving outcomes and care quality for those living with, or at risk of, diabetes are key priorities for the Government. The right hon. Member for Knowsley correctly highlighted the role that modern technologies, when properly used, can play in the care of people with type 1 diabetes. Key to managing it is, of course, monitoring and controlling glucose levels, and—as he explained in  great depth—a number of different technologies are available for that purpose, including glucose monitoring devices and insulin pumps.
As the right hon. Gentleman said, artificial pancreas devices are an emerging technology that combines continuous glucose monitoring with insulin pumps. One system, the Medtronic 670G system, which he mentioned, was recently approved by the US Food and Drug Administration and a European licence is being pursued.[Official Report, 23 January 2019, Vol. 653, c. 3MC.] Large randomised clinical studies of similar systems are now beginning and several are expected to come to the market in the next five years. Teams in the UK are leading some of that work.
The right hon. Member for Leicester East talked about the funding of research on diabetes. The Department funds such research through the National Institute for Health Research. In the last five years, the NIHR has awarded just over £144 million for work on diabetes, and 346 active projects are taking place across the NIHR infrastructure. One of them involves the closed-loop insulin delivery system to which he referred.
Giving people access to diabetes technology as swiftly as possible is, of course, a priority. Simon Stevens, chief executive of NHS England, said recently:
“Tens of thousands of people with Type 1 diabetes across the country will benefit from life changing glucose monitors on the NHS.”
The announcement referred to the FreeStyle Libre, a device that the right hon. Member for Leicester East also mentioned. NHS England will ensure that flash glucose monitoring is available on prescription to all patients who qualify for it in line with current recommendations. From April 2019, all qualifying patients will be able to receive it from their local GP or diabetes team.
The right hon. Gentleman talked a lot about structured education and psychological support. In line with existing NICE guidelines, structured education should be offered   to all patients within 12 months of diagnosis of diabetes. As he said, reported attendance levels at structured education courses have historically been low, but they continue to increase, and this year alone NHS England has invested £10.5 million to improve attendance by people with type 1 and type 2 diabetes.

Keith Vaz: May I pursue another point raised by my right hon. Friend the Member for Knowsley (Mr Howarth)? I understand that the NHS is still paying providers, even though people do not turn up. That is a big problem. We need to look at the providers. There is a reason why people do not turn up. We need to change the system in order to make them more able to do so.

Caroline Dinenage: That is an excellent point. The purpose of the £10.5 million that I have just mentioned is to improve attendance. It is clearly necessary to look at the way in which the service is provided and at who is providing it, and to ensure that it is provided in a way that will make people attend.
The right hon. Member for Knowsley spoke about improving care for those with diabetes and eating disorders, including what is often referred to as diabulimia. I think he will be pleased to hear that NHS England is supporting two pilots to test, trial and evaluate the effect of integrated diabetes and mental health pathways for the identification, assessment and treatment of diabulimia.
We will continue to create a health system that supports innovation, promotes the testing and development of health technology, and ensures that the best innovations are used so that patients can benefit as quickly as possible.
Question put and agreed to.
House adjourned.

DEFERRED DIVISION

Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority

That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that Her Majesty will appoint Richard Lloyd to the office of ordinary member of the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority for a period of five years with effect from 1 December 2018.
The House divided:
Ayes 513, Noes 13.

Question accordingly agreed to.